$499 Headless iMac?

[BillHarrison]

Too sterile... It has no "face"... Too plain.

Also, if the target is iPod users/switchers, it has to somehow look a bit like an iPod casing.

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!

 

[gekko513]

With the iPod problem, can OS X read a windows formatted iPod just as a hard drive without using iTunes? I backed up all of my songs by putting them on the iPod HD as well as the normal iPod sync method. So, I'm able to just get them off as both a music file and a file that plays on the iPod. Would that be a viable way to have them transfer their music? Just save them as files to the iPod, transfer them to the iMac as files without using iTunes. Then, you just re-format your iPod in OS X form, and re-sync.

Yes

 

[iJoe]

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.

 

[Platform]

The one thing I hope is that they don't skimp on the hard drive or at least let users upgrade it. The rumor is either a 40GB or 80GB hard drive. Well I have a 60GB iPod Photo with 43GB of songs on it. Maybe I'm doing the math wrong but I think I would have a hard time fitting 43GB into a 40GB drive.

Even 80GB would kinda suck since between OS, iWorks, iLife, iTunes tracks etc it might start to get a tad tight on even an 80GB drive. Yah hopefully I can flip open a panel on the bottom or back and simply upgrade the RAM to 1GB and the hard drive to a 100GB drive. That would be sweet.

Very good point

For this thing to appeal to some other users that want a mac but wants to be able to do more than just check their email they need RAM and a bigger HDD, also nice graphics would be nice

 

[Platform]

With external FW drives less than a buck a gig, why not direct iTunes to import and playback from an external drive and keep your internal drive for apps and files. In this scenario, 40GB to 60GB is plenty large.

OK but many people dont want extra thing to be around they want it all in one box and for one price not to buy a computer then have to buy an external drive! that would make a lot of "switchers" not switch because they dont want that extra hassel

 

[jmurray]

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...

 

[jmurray]

OK but many people dont want extra thing to be around they want it all in one box and for one price not to buy a computer then have to buy an external drive! that would make a lot of "switchers" not switch because they dont want that extra hassel

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.

 

[XForge]

I wouldn't be surprise to see the eMac axed by Apple as a result of the headless Macs. The headless Mac makes more sense to educational insititutions. Or, I guess the headless Mac might be the new eMac, depending on how you look at it.

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.

 

[Rootman]

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.

That's why they gave them to us at work, I guess. Nice machines but noisy and bad UT framerates.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I think that it would be awesome if this new headless Mac would easily connect to a TV. That would solve the problem of needing to purchase a monitor also. This would also bring Steve closer to have a more complete media center.

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]

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.

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?

 

[XForge]

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?

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.

 

[Rootman]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Yvan256]

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!

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?

 

[Yvan256]

[...] 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

Not bad, I like it!

or at the bottom of this page:

http://www.applepete.com/concepts/

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!

I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Indeed. Only mere hours to go! (okay, a lot of hours)

 

[Rootman]

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!

Yes, that's the setup I would buy. Fingers crossed.

 

[MotionCity]

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.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

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.

I agree. In the mind of the consumer there is something magical about the $500 or under price point.

 

[Rootman]

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.

Where did you see this?

 

[dongmin]

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.

He may be confusing it with the AppleInsider report. It's still $499 on Thinksecret.

dm

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Under $500 would sell better IMO.

 

[MotionCity]

He may be confusing it with the AppleInsider report. It's still $499 on Thinksecret.
dm

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.

 

[Floop]

Under $500 would sell better IMO.

You think ?

 

[jmurray]

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.