$499 Headless iMac?

[MacG]

iHome?

Very creative, but has to be a fake.

1) The box is too small to include a keyboard - wouldn't that come with a headless mac?

2) No way Mac wouldn't be part of the name - apple would leverage that brand rather than try and launch a new brand (iHome)

3) The box is too thick - if you look at the inside pic of the iHome packaged, it sits flush with the top of the box, which means the bottom half of the box is empty. Plus, that wouldn't be very secure packaging to have that much styrofoam, and then have the top face of the unit right up against the cardboard of the box.

Man, I love MWSF run ups!

 

[wdlove]

I guess this one has already been posted before? http://dms.tecknohost.com/macrumors/i/ihome/ it looks okay to me, but I can't see the monitor connection port on it?

I like the iPod mini-esque one I think it's really nice!

Someone really went to a lot of trouble to be convincing on this rumor. The box really looks official. When showing the actual iHome, it looks so fake. Can't imagine what a pre-MacWorld would be without that.

 

[Macmaniac]

This is an obvious fake, if you look real hard at the box it is the same size as an iBook box! In fact it is an iBook box with pieces of paper taped over it! If you look real hard at the edges on the left side of this photo you can see where the original box cardboard is and where the paper was taped over, it is not flush!

 

[Rootman]

Very creative, but has to be a fake.

1) The box is too small to include a keyboard - wouldn't that come with a headless mac?

They used to sell Macs without mice and keyboards (like the Quadras) - they were a separate purchase. Besides, this product won't require a keyboard.

2) No way Mac wouldn't be part of the name - apple would leverage that brand rather than try and launch a new brand (iHome)

Oh, not like iPod? (Guess they learned their lesson from THAT marketing debacle.)

3) The box is too thick - if you look at the inside pic of the iHome packaged, it sits flush with the top of the box, which means the bottom half of the box is empty.

The bottom half has the wall wart, remote control, video adaptors, docs, and a BIG SURPRISE.

 

[mowogg]

Jeep

And more importantly, Jeep, which was an American Motors brand.

That's right. I had forgotten about Jeep when I posted that. You are correct and Jeep is why Chrysler bought the other stuff.
Eagle, AMC and Renault are all gone from the American market, Jeep remains a huge profit centre (spelled that way in honor of the fake Mac earlier in this thread) for Chrysler.

 

[Kagetenshi]

Oh, not like iPod? (Guess they learned their lesson from THAT marketing debacle.)

Completely different situation. If this is marketed as a computer, it will be a Macintosh.

If, on the other hand, it isn't marketed as a computer and doesn't run OS X (or, more completely, Macintosh OS X), then it won't be called a Mac.

Though the Macintosh iHome isn't out of the realm of possibility.

~J

 

[Yvan256]

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.

It still sounds real to me. 'This product is not going to be about performance' could mean that they're not even going to put any specs on the box, only what you can do with it.

Case in point: do you really care what clock speed the DSP in your iPod has?

iBox, iLife. That's all you need to know (especially since Joe street still compares computers on a MHz basis alone)

 

[Yvan256]

Plays 45 RPM records.

Finally, a way to easily rip my old records with iTunes!

 

[Yvan256]

Sadly, even the super slick boys at J&R in New York will look at you in confusion. America just doesn't DO Scart.

Neither does Canada (nor Japan nor Australia, I think).

SCART is found only on euro equipment... Why they're not ditching it for the standard connectors (RCA, S-Video, components), I got not clue.

Just like I keep wondering in which century will the USA finally use the metric system.

 

[Rootman]

Completely different situation. If this is marketed as a computer, it will be a Macintosh.
If, on the other hand, it isn't marketed as a computer and doesn't run OS X (or, more completely, Macintosh OS X), then it won't be called a Mac.

It will not be marketed as a computer, but it does run on OSX (and it has the workings and functionality of a Mac notebook). That's the problem with MS Media Center (an acknowledged marketing disappointment) - it's perceived as a PC.

This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP.

(iPod is, after all, just a small PC. But nobody has to know it. Same here.)

 

[Yvan256]

I guess this is one of the many problems with design, should a scart socket be included so as to provide functionality for everyone in Europe (and wherever else uses Scart) but at the same time create an extra cost everywhere else as well as having a redundant port, or should they try and make everyone in Europe try and use an unfamiliar connection type but keep costs down?

How about they only solder the connector required for the region and have different backplates/casings to hide the missing ports? Or would that cost more than having all the ports for everyone?

How do you connect DVD players, VCR's etc to your TV? I assumed Scart was a worldwide format...

There's RF (you don't want that, quality is horrible), RCA Video (you don't want that either, the colors seem to be shaking), S-Video (what I use with most of my equipment) and components (what my DVD player uses). There's a separate set of audio connectors and standards too (dual RCA for stereo, optical/coax for digital audio, and maybe others I'm forgetting).

Here's a picture of what the iBox/iHome's back could look like. That thing doesn't have the three RCA connectors of components out, BTW.

but then I thought that about A4,A5 (etc) paper!

Don't talk to me about A4 paper... At work (Quebec, Canada), we had lots of french versions of software, and the damn things kept defaulting to A4 paper for printing (but we use letter-size paper in Canada).

 

[Yvan256]

how do you even pronounce Bidouille ??????

Hum, for someone speaking in english, I guess that would be "bee do eeye" (start with "ee" from "eel" but end with "ye" from "eye"... "eeye". I can't think of any word that sounds like "ille").

edit: I guess "Bi do ee" would work...


Translated, that would be like "MacThingie", anyway.

 

[MacG]

It will not be marketed as a computer, but it does run on OSX (and it has the workings and functionality of a Mac notebook). That's the problem with MS Media Center (an acknowledged marketing disappointment) - it's perceived as a PC.

This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP.

(iPod is, after all, just a small PC. But nobody has to know it. Same here.)

"This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP." Huh? iPod is a hardware music player, Napster is peer-to-peer file trading software. I don't understand your analogy.

The rumor posted by ThinkSecret and AI is that Apple will be releasing a low cost Mac computer - how did that morph to become a media center non-Mac computer?

Edit: Oh and MS Media Center's low sales are not a problem with perception - it's a problem with the concept. Most people don't want all-in-one do-it-all devices. For PVR - get a Tivo or a cable box PVR. For music, get an iPod or Airport Express. And who really wants to use their TV to check or read email or surf the net?

 

[Yvan256]

But I don't think this headless is going to be called a Mac. I think it's like an iPod for TV.

iTV?

 

[weldon]

It will not be marketed as a computer, but it does run on OSX (and it has the workings and functionality of a Mac notebook). That's the problem with MS Media Center (an acknowledged marketing disappointment) - it's perceived as a PC.

Of course, MS Media Center Edition 2005 has doubled the installed base of MCE in the last four months. I know Bill Gates has said that he was hoping for higher numbers, but they have sold as many copies of MCE as DirecTV has sold DVR appliances. And those are way less expensive than a computer. I wouldn't call that a marketing disappointment. I would say it's the first touch of breeze from the coming storm.

This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP.

I don't get the analogy. Are you trying to say (1) that a new headless, appliance-like Mac is going to kill MCE just as iPod killed Napster? Or are you saying (2) that the headless Mac will kill MCE just as iTunes music store has killed the reborn Napster store?

(iPod is, after all, just a small PC. But nobody has to know it. Same here.)

Ummm, not really.

 

[weldon]

The rumor posted by ThinkSecret and AI is that Apple will be releasing a low cost Mac computer - how did that morph to become a media center non-Mac computer?

I got sucked in responding to the other idiocy, but this is the point I should have made. Apple isn't going to release a media center Mac. They aren't that aggressive about trying to push new technology paradigms on people, and frankly can't afford to be. They need to get a low-cost computer out there to increase the installed base. Once that's done, they can work on integrating more of the "digital lifestyle" to your Mac.

Edit: Oh and MS Media Center's low sales are not a problem with perception - it's a problem with the concept. Most people don't want all-in-one do-it-all devices. For PVR - get a Tivo or a cable box PVR. For music, get an iPod or Airport Express. And who really wants to use their TV to check or read email or surf the net?

I disagree here. The concept is sound because MCE makes your PC the hub for your content, just as Apple has been touting the Mac as the hub for your digital iLife. I really want total integration of all digital content across all devices in my home. Yes, I have TiVo and love it death. I also have a cable HD DVR (Moto 6412) and like that too. I also have an iPod, digital camera, miniDV digital camcorder, surround sound system in the TV room, bookshelf stereo in the office, etc. I would like all those things a lot better if they talked to each other and let me manage them from a computer. Then I can use the purpose-built device to DISPLAY and enjoy the content while leveraging the processing power and flexibility of my computer to manage everything.

 

[MacG]

I disagree here. The concept is sound because MCE makes your PC the hub for your content, just as Apple has been touting the Mac as the hub for your digital iLife. I really want total integration of all digital content across all devices in my home. Yes, I have TiVo and love it death. I also have a cable HD DVR (Moto 6412) and like that too. I also have an iPod, digital camera, miniDV digital camcorder, surround sound system in the TV room, bookshelf stereo in the office, etc. I would like all those things a lot better if they talked to each other and let me manage them from a computer. Then I can use the purpose-built device to DISPLAY and enjoy the content while leveraging the processing power and flexibility of my computer to manage everything.

Yeah, I agree that would be very cool - and I'd want that as well. But I said "most people" in my post and I think that's still true. If I think about most of my friends or relatives, they are not technophiles and they're perfectly happy with non-integrated devices.

 

[Zaty]

Neither does Canada (nor Japan nor Australia, I think).

SCART is found only on euro equipment... Why they're not ditching it for the standard connectors (RCA, S-Video, components), I got not clue.

Because it's convenient. You only need one cable for video and audio. (Scart can transmit S-Video as well as composite singnals) Scart isn't the best solution quality-wise but it's good enough to connect cheap and mid-range DVD players to TV sets.

 

[Rootman]

Rootman said: (iPod is really just a small computer.)
Ummm, not really.

In what way is an iPod NOT a computer? It is, just like XBox and TiVo.
(People have hacked all three - including iPods - to work as Unix servers and run open source apps, by the way.)

And all of these computers have one other thing in common with the headless -- they are computers that will not be marketed as computers, thus their success.

 

[Rootman]

"This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP." Huh? iPod is a hardware music player, Napster is peer-to-peer file trading software. I don't understand your analogy.

Obviously, you don't.

 

[Yvan256]

Obviously, you don't.

I don't understand the analogy either... "This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP." is four things in the same sentence... If you do understand it, care to explain?

What I don't get is the "iPod was to Napster on XP", what's "Napster on XP"? (Napster wasn't a Windows XP-only program)

A better analogy would be "iHome will be to MS Media Center what iPod+iTunes is to regular MP3 players+WinAmp".

 

[weldon]

In what way is an iPod NOT a computer? It is, just like XBox and TiVo.
(People have hacked all three - including iPods - to work as Unix servers and run open source apps, by the way.)

And all of these computers have one other thing in common with the headless -- they are computers that will not be marketed as computers, thus their success.

Well, II've hacked my own Xbox and TiVo to run web servers and media players and stuff, so I know what you're talking about, by the way. However, I think that you are changing your quote and removing some context to set up a different argument than what I was originally responding to.

My comment was really in response to your assertion that the iPod is a "PC" (you changed your quote to "computer" when you originally said "PC") and nobody knows that it's a "PC" just like this new headless Mac is a "PC" and no one will know it. This new Mac (assuming it exists) will be a regular computer and everyone will know it. It won't be a purpose-built device for a specific function like the iPod is. THAT was my main point.

Beyond that, I think when you misuse the term "PC" to say something like "iPod is, after all, just a small PC" you make yourself inherently difficult to understand and shouldn't complain when a bunch of other people jump on you to explain yourself and clarify what you mean.

 

[Zaty]

Not everyone is convinced.

Despite Apple's suit against TS, some people still believe the headless iMac doesn't exist.

I only hope Apple didn't leak false information to find internal leaks. Because if they did, they would have a big problem right now.

http://www.billpalmer.net/2005/01/headless-imac-rumor-is-just-as-phony.html

Even though the concept of a headless iMac is not new, how come it got so much attention this time? Coincidence? Or perhaps Bill Palmer is wrong and the headless iMac exists? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Only three days to go.

 

[Rootman]

I don't understand the analogy either... "This will be to MS Media Center as iPod was to Napster on XP." is four things in the same sentence... If you do understand it, care to explain?

What I don't get is the "iPod was to Napster on XP", what's "Napster on XP"? (Napster wasn't a Windows XP-only program)

A better analogy would be "iHome will be to MS Media Center what iPod+iTunes is to regular MP3 players+WinAmp".

iPod (how quickly we forget the surprise of it all) brought order to the chaos of digital music (in which nothing - hardware, software, files, player, music, distribution, royalties, payments - was integrated) and was a huge business success as a noncomputer product. Now iPod does that with photos, too.

And next..

 

[weldon]

Yeah, I agree that would be very cool - and I'd want that as well. But I said "most people" in my post and I think that's still true. If I think about most of my friends or relatives, they are not technophiles and they're perfectly happy with non-integrated devices.

You said most people don't want "all-in-one do-it-all" devices and I agreed with that by pointing out that I (an admitted technophile) also do not want an all-in-one device. I want purpose-built devices that will talk to my computer. I'm saying take the approach of the iPod and make a purpose-built device to do one thing but increase it's value by making it talk to your home computer. And just like people prefer the iPod for music because iTunes makes it really easy to manage music, people will prefer other entertainment devices that are better because they connect to their computer.