Yvan256 said:
If that does not look like an Ipod Mini, then I must be totally and completely insane.....
*NOTE* I am totally and completely insane, but thats off topic!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$499 Headless iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If that does not look like an Ipod Mini, then I must be totally and completely insane.....
*NOTE* I am totally and completely insane, but thats off topic!
I personally think that it will be sort of midway between a cube and a tower. Lets not forget that Apple don't just have to worry about the outside, they actually have to put a computer on the inside, and I doubt they'll opt for more expensive, smaller parts.
I also expect it will have the same treatment as the iMac G5. If it is anodised aluminium I will be quite surprised.
I also expect it will have the same treatment as the iMac G5. If it is anodised aluminium I will be quite surprised.
When has Apple ever released a new product that disappoints everyone? Or skimped on design and appeal? Some may prefer one model over the next, but I can't remember an outright failure in appeal since the Mac TV [codename Peter Pan] introduced in October 1993, discontinued February 1994.
http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=personal&subpage=mactv_tv&skin=specs
But, let's face it, one of the tradeoffs for the high rate of appeal and functionality success is price. And for Apple to make this sub $500 price point, there will be very little "new" R&D, perhaps just the shell, whatever form it takes. The guts will undoubtedly be taken from current iBook, minimal ports, mostly bare bones stuff. I'd love it if they brought back the Cube, but somehow I have a feeling it will be more like this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19819
or at the bottom of this page:
http://www.applepete.com/concepts/
both of which have been posted before.
I guess we'll find out soon enough...
http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=personal&subpage=mactv_tv&skin=specs
But, let's face it, one of the tradeoffs for the high rate of appeal and functionality success is price. And for Apple to make this sub $500 price point, there will be very little "new" R&D, perhaps just the shell, whatever form it takes. The guts will undoubtedly be taken from current iBook, minimal ports, mostly bare bones stuff. I'd love it if they brought back the Cube, but somehow I have a feeling it will be more like this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19819
or at the bottom of this page:
http://www.applepete.com/concepts/
both of which have been posted before.
I guess we'll find out soon enough...
Platform said:
I concede on the "extra thing" thing, but it seems to me that people with multiple Apple products are more likely to partition drives, or have extra drives for organization, etc.
jakemikey said:
Actually one of the things that makes eMac attractive is its mass. The kids can't screw up the machines if they can't move them.
XForge said:
That's why they gave them to us at work, I guess. Nice machines but noisy and bad UT framerates.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
wdlove said:
Obviously you haven't read through the other 1718 posts. You call yourself a dedicated Macrumors patron! 😉
Honestly have you ever tried using a standard desktop on even a moderately new TV? Anything short of a HD TV looks like complete crap. Seriously. The only time I've ever hooked up my laptop to a TV was to watch DIVX movies. Otherwise dealing with the OS in whatever resolution standard TV's use (I do know its below 640 x 480) is almost painful.
Until HDTV is pervasive I honestly don't see Apple jumping on the media center bandwagon. Apple is all about the experience and by and large anything less then an 1080i TV is not going to meet with Apple, and more importantly Steve's, idea of a good experience.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
XForge said:
Huh? 😕 You think kids will be playing toss with these new systems? As long as you have a $30 Kingston lock on these things I don't see what the big deal would be?
SiliconAddict said:
This is true, you could do that. They'll still be able to f. with the connectors and so forth though. Easier to have an all-in-one that can't be tossed about.
On the other hand the cost effectiveness can't be argued. With eMac, when the screen goes, it's $$ to fix it, else you junk the whole system. With this solution instead, just buy a new monitor for cheap and you're all good again.
SiliconAddict said:
No, it would actually be useful for many people to be able play a DVD on a regular TV, and even access and control iTunes, iPhoto and email on a TV screen, with a special low res format devised for such a contigency.
wdlove
macrumors P6
SiliconAddict said:
I have been keeping up with the thread. Yes, I'm a patron of MacRumors. Maybe it's more of a dream than reality. I just don't want to see Bill Gates and Microsoft take over the Home Entertainment Market. No, I haven't tried hooking up a Mac to a TV. I will admit that technically, wouldn't have a clue. But for the user that will be purchasing the $499 Mac, probably the Cinema Display would be out of reach. Unless Steve has something up his sleeve on this one also.
BillHarrison said:
Yes, that mock-up does look like an iPod mini, but the iPod mini does have a clickwheel and a display. The overall look of the iPod mini is "nice, clean and streamlined". That mock-up is just too "empty".
Also, I think they'll go with an iPod-like casing just like they did with the iMac G5. Unless of course an aluminium casing costs less than white plastic?
jmurray said:
Not bad, I like it!
jmurray said:
Not bad either, I like it too!
Note that in both cases, we're looking at headless white boxes, iPod look-alike systems. With minimal stuff on them (like the CD drive and power button on the front, ports in the back). I do prefer the first one though: horizontal drive (dunno why, I don't like vertical drives like the one in the iMac) and a few ports in the front. The ports add character to its front face, if you ask me. It's also more practical for stuff like headphones, joysticks, portable devices such as USB drives, etc.
My vote goes to mock-up #1!
As long as it has:
- G4/1.25GHz (the new freescale one would be nice, but I'm not counting on it)
- USB 2.0, Firewire 400, Ethernet 10/100, 56kbps modem (I couldn't care less though, a BTO option to ditch it would be nice)
- 256MB with the ability to upgrade to at least 1GB
- 80GB Hard Disk
- GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB or better (a basic Radeon 9600 with 128MB VRAM would be very nice, but I'm not counting on it since the iMac G5 doesn't even have that as of now)
- standard VGA port
I'll be happy if it really is 499$US/600$CAN!
jmurray said:
Indeed. Only mere hours to go! (okay, a lot of hours) 😀
Price Adjustment
Have y'all noticed that Think Secret has adjusted the price northward? It is now a sub $600 headless Mac. I'm not as excited anymore. 😡
Have y'all noticed that Think Secret has adjusted the price northward? It is now a sub $600 headless Mac. I'm not as excited anymore. 😡
Chip NoVaMac
macrumors G3
MotionCity said:
I agree. In the mind of the consumer there is something magical about the $500 or under price point.
Chip NoVaMac
macrumors G3
dongmin said:
And so it is... Crap, I thought I saw it there. I must be going blind or getting senile.
Well actually, Hooray! I feel better now.
Just re-read the entire TS announcement and didn't catch the following interesting statement in the last paragraph the first time I read it:
"Sources familiar with the product cautioned that the low-end Mac will be marketed towards a totally different audience than those who traditionally buy even a $799 eMac. 'This product is not going to be about performance,' said a source close to Apple."
The bottom eMac is 1.25GHz G4 with a system bus speed of 167MHz. If the above is true, and the "low-end" headless Mac will be less of a performer than even the $799 eMac, how is it that the preliminary specs of the headless are similar? Somehow this doesn't jive. Remember, the comment is about "performance," not features.
"Sources familiar with the product cautioned that the low-end Mac will be marketed towards a totally different audience than those who traditionally buy even a $799 eMac. 'This product is not going to be about performance,' said a source close to Apple."
The bottom eMac is 1.25GHz G4 with a system bus speed of 167MHz. If the above is true, and the "low-end" headless Mac will be less of a performer than even the $799 eMac, how is it that the preliminary specs of the headless are similar? Somehow this doesn't jive. Remember, the comment is about "performance," not features.