agreed
I agree with MacBoy X about everything except how ready Apple is to fix the screen on your eMac. . .
I agree with MacBoy X about everything except how ready Apple is to fix the screen on your eMac. . .
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.
Apple Releases iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: agreed
Davy,
there was an article posted in these forums a bit back that said if you quoted the apple care document that states the issues with ur eMac they gave you no problem.
I am trouble to hear about ur issues. Apple has been soo good about fixing my TiBook when the famous gray spot appeared above my sleep light. They also replaced my iPod that wouldn't hold a charge....
I hope you find a fast solution to this issue.
Davy,
there was an article posted in these forums a bit back that said if you quoted the apple care document that states the issues with ur eMac they gave you no problem.
I am trouble to hear about ur issues. Apple has been soo good about fixing my TiBook when the famous gray spot appeared above my sleep light. They also replaced my iPod that wouldn't hold a charge....
I hope you find a fast solution to this issue.
This is hilarious (from Think Secret, February 3)
"Sources report Apple's decision to lower prices is based on the current economic climate, price competition from rival Windows-based PCs and surveys taken in Apple retail stores showing customer dissatisfaction with prices. "During the Christmas buying season, we found many customers bringing in ads from competitors literally comparing system prices and features," said one unnamed source who works at an Apple retail Store. "This was reported back to corporate, and they decided this was becoming more of a factor we had to address to continue gaining 'switchers'."
We got new iMacs all right, but the reported reasoning behind the new lineup and price structure are at best MIA or worse - gone AWOL. I guess that report from the front line just got lost in the mail somehow.
Never mind the fact that iMacs already was rather expensive compared to most consumer PCs. Increasing the price on the entry level model by $100 (8,3%) just adds insult to injuries, and can hardly be characterized as a smart move.
Never mind the fact that iMacs are truly state of the art consumer PCs.
But why on earth are Apple then making it harder to get one? If you're luring switchers to the Mac-platform, narrowing the window of opportunity to sell your best stuff is just plain stupid. An affordable entry level model is the gateway to sell more high end models. You take a good look at the 15", like it, adore it, but the 17" wide screen is so much sweeter - and before you know it, you go for it. On the other hand, If the stuff is out of your range from the get go, you're never even going to reach for the next level.
I have never ever doubted Apples "non plus ultra" ability to make truly awesome products, but I'm having second thoughts one their business model.
undefined
"Sources report Apple's decision to lower prices is based on the current economic climate, price competition from rival Windows-based PCs and surveys taken in Apple retail stores showing customer dissatisfaction with prices. "During the Christmas buying season, we found many customers bringing in ads from competitors literally comparing system prices and features," said one unnamed source who works at an Apple retail Store. "This was reported back to corporate, and they decided this was becoming more of a factor we had to address to continue gaining 'switchers'."
We got new iMacs all right, but the reported reasoning behind the new lineup and price structure are at best MIA or worse - gone AWOL. I guess that report from the front line just got lost in the mail somehow.
Never mind the fact that iMacs already was rather expensive compared to most consumer PCs. Increasing the price on the entry level model by $100 (8,3%) just adds insult to injuries, and can hardly be characterized as a smart move.
Never mind the fact that iMacs are truly state of the art consumer PCs.
But why on earth are Apple then making it harder to get one? If you're luring switchers to the Mac-platform, narrowing the window of opportunity to sell your best stuff is just plain stupid. An affordable entry level model is the gateway to sell more high end models. You take a good look at the 15", like it, adore it, but the 17" wide screen is so much sweeter - and before you know it, you go for it. On the other hand, If the stuff is out of your range from the get go, you're never even going to reach for the next level.
I have never ever doubted Apples "non plus ultra" ability to make truly awesome products, but I'm having second thoughts one their business model.
undefined
eMac is not bad at all, another story for Apple
MacBoy X,
I just don't want to have another knock down drag out argument in the middle of AppleStore WillowBend with a MacGenius that doesn't even believe that it's within the realm of possibility that this is part of the known issue. *sigh*
But I will say that if my eMac hadn't been afflicted by the issue, it would be the perfect machine for my needs, it's fast, it's a workhorse, and it benchmarks faster than an iMac rated at the same speed with the same amount of RAM.
MacBoy X,
I just don't want to have another knock down drag out argument in the middle of AppleStore WillowBend with a MacGenius that doesn't even believe that it's within the realm of possibility that this is part of the known issue. *sigh*
But I will say that if my eMac hadn't been afflicted by the issue, it would be the perfect machine for my needs, it's fast, it's a workhorse, and it benchmarks faster than an iMac rated at the same speed with the same amount of RAM.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor graphics
Name a more current FPS engine besides UT2K3 (which isn't out for macs yet).
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
D'oh, yer right. I got my 9x00's mixed up.
I wouldn't call Q3A a modern game though.
Lethal
Name a more current FPS engine besides UT2K3 (which isn't out for macs yet).
$100 price bump was stupid. Regardless of increased "capabilities."
And what is state of the art about the iMac? Surely you don't mean the hardware? Outdated video/memory/bus/CPU specs on the entire range. All in one form factor is no longer unique, albeit still the nicest implementation of it. The OS is nice, but kind of slow feeling still.
Does the CRT iMac 700 MHz still count as an affordable entry level machine? Me thinks not...
A bit of historical perspective:
I remember when my dad made an investment in our first computer.
Apple II+, with 64K RAM (we got the 16K RAM expansion card), two floppy drives, Epson dot matrix printer, and 40x25 color monitor with graphics card.
Set him back $2500 in 1980 dollars. I remember him getting a bank loan to finance this.
Man! That's a great idea! go ahead and transfer her 5 gigs of Napster tunes into iTunes. And a rose. HHmmm. maybe a rose on the desktop will work. Its always so hard to buy flowers ON Valentine's Day.
And for all you folks complaining about the prices....That price drop of $200 allowed my AppleLoan to work without groveling to up the credit limit. Not to mention it covered Alabama's repressive city, county, and state tax of 9%.
Hahahahaha!
Oh, and I told the Apple sales rep about the new machines. He had neglected to read the memo on his desk until I called.
cheers!
John
Sorry, I read up to page 3 of this thread but have no time to read the rest, so I'm sorry if this has already been replied to:
The problem with this is that it has been a very very very long time since the last updates, and in the computer world, a year is a long time. Heck, a month is a long time, and while the PC world is making leaps and bounds in every aspect, the iMac is now only starting to get things like a 7200 rpm hard drive, a 64Mb video card (of course, this is only offered on the 17" starting at $1700 ), and not much else. All obsolete, and at a price drop that doesn't mean squat. If I wait a year to purchase a PC, I know it will be much much better than the machines being sold 1 year ago. This is the way computers work, not like this.
The 133Mhz bus is nice, but it should have one already? Also, the price range is garbage!!! The extra $500 you pay to get a 17" is definitely not worth the money. I agree with people when they say that the best desktop deal is either the eMac or the low end 1Ghz PowerMac.
Again, the extra 100Mhz hike in cpu speed and a $200 price drop on the low end machine is nothing in the computer world, not after such a long period of time. They have offered consumers nothing to really choose from. Its either a pricey low end 800Mhz machine --- a complete rip-off for the same technology they had from 1 year ago; or a 17" $1799 machine that would be great if it had a sale price of $1599. And the high end 17" iMac for $2348? Well, lets not even go there, please. When looking from the mid 17" machine to the high-end 17" machine, all I can see is the most expensive DDR Ram ever sold.
The problem with this is that it has been a very very very long time since the last updates, and in the computer world, a year is a long time. Heck, a month is a long time, and while the PC world is making leaps and bounds in every aspect, the iMac is now only starting to get things like a 7200 rpm hard drive, a 64Mb video card (of course, this is only offered on the 17" starting at $1700
), and not much else. All obsolete, and at a price drop that doesn't mean squat. If I wait a year to purchase a PC, I know it will be much much better than the machines being sold 1 year ago. This is the way computers work, not like this. The 133Mhz bus is nice, but it should have one already? Also, the price range is garbage!!! The extra $500 you pay to get a 17" is definitely not worth the money. I agree with people when they say that the best desktop deal is either the eMac or the low end 1Ghz PowerMac.
Again, the extra 100Mhz hike in cpu speed and a $200 price drop on the low end machine is nothing in the computer world, not after such a long period of time. They have offered consumers nothing to really choose from. Its either a pricey low end 800Mhz machine --- a complete rip-off for the same technology they had from 1 year ago; or a 17" $1799 machine that would be great if it had a sale price of $1599. And the high end 17" iMac for $2348? Well, lets not even go there, please.
When looking from the mid 17" machine to the high-end 17" machine, all I can see is the most expensive DDR Ram ever sold.Re: WRONG SPECS on australian apple store site
keep you pants on man, its not the wrong specs just a few hours old. give them a little time, they dont have superman working for them u know.
keep you pants on man, its not the wrong specs just a few hours old. give them a little time, they dont have superman working for them u know.
Glad I didn't wait
Well, this is much less of a blow than I feared when I bought my 17" iMac at the day-after-Thanksgiving event. Cost was reduced to $1,888 that night, and the machine's got plenty of what I need. Definitely don't feel like I got burned. Phew.
-JZ
Well, this is much less of a blow than I feared when I bought my 17" iMac at the day-after-Thanksgiving event. Cost was reduced to $1,888 that night, and the machine's got plenty of what I need. Definitely don't feel like I got burned. Phew.
-JZ
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor graphics
Q3A is three years old. It's not a modern game. If you want to talk engines (which can be tweaked and modified) that's a different story.
Lethal
Q3A is three years old. It's not a modern game. If you want to talk engines (which can be tweaked and modified) that's a different story.
Lethal
Why would you want FW800 on an iPod. The compact hard drives used in the iPod are not fast enough to need any more bandwidth than what FW400 provides.
Pretty Disappointing
Guess I'll be waiting another year to replace my 3yr old 400mhz G3iMac DV. I just upgraded it to OSX.2 and it still performs good enough for home use. The new iMacs are just still not fast enough to justify spending $1300 or $1800. That snail paced 133 mhz system bus is the real show stopper! Hope the new IBM G5 chips trickle down to the whole line real soon!
Where's the $999 G4 iMac? Why isn't there a $499 or $599 G3 iMac? Apple is missing out on so many millions of possible customers that can easily go buy any number of decent PC's in this price range. If Apple really wants to gain market share, they need to seriously go after the lower end of the market. These are the masses and if they can get them to convert, they can hopefully sell them a higher end machine next time around - and may get some of their friends in the process!
Guess I'll be waiting another year to replace my 3yr old 400mhz G3iMac DV. I just upgraded it to OSX.2 and it still performs good enough for home use. The new iMacs are just still not fast enough to justify spending $1300 or $1800. That snail paced 133 mhz system bus is the real show stopper! Hope the new IBM G5 chips trickle down to the whole line real soon!
Where's the $999 G4 iMac? Why isn't there a $499 or $599 G3 iMac? Apple is missing out on so many millions of possible customers that can easily go buy any number of decent PC's in this price range. If Apple really wants to gain market share, they need to seriously go after the lower end of the market. These are the masses and if they can get them to convert, they can hopefully sell them a higher end machine next time around - and may get some of their friends in the process!
I think what Apple has done today is the right move. They've now created a price dividing line between pro and consumer. The consumer end is getting messy, too many product lines, too many different types of chips they have to buy. It's confusing for the customer and increases their overheads.
What you have to remember is that those who want a 1ghz G4 iMac get a monitor (decent monitor as well) included in the price. If you get a 1ghz G4 power mac you have to buy a monitor which can add at least £500 ($699) to the total. There's the superdrive, and lots of additional extras. It all adds up!
That 1ghz iMac is a superb purchase and if I was in the market for one at the moment I'd purchase. I have an 867 Power Mac at the moment and soon will be getting a 1.25 dual, Mac OS X and all the apps perform flawlessly on an 867. They will fly on 1ghz.
Go out and buy one today!!!!
What you have to remember is that those who want a 1ghz G4 iMac get a monitor (decent monitor as well) included in the price. If you get a 1ghz G4 power mac you have to buy a monitor which can add at least £500 ($699) to the total. There's the superdrive, and lots of additional extras. It all adds up!
That 1ghz iMac is a superb purchase and if I was in the market for one at the moment I'd purchase. I have an 867 Power Mac at the moment and soon will be getting a 1.25 dual, Mac OS X and all the apps perform flawlessly on an 867. They will fly on 1ghz.
Go out and buy one today!!!!
I don't know about "again" Robguz - the new 20" display was definite proof that Apple CAN be competitive on price if it really wants to - but you certainly nailed my main qualms on the price breaks, cache, RAM, graphics card, and HD size. Other than that these new iMacs are perfect
I couldn't agree with you more on the memory front - most switchers are going to look on this as (dare I say it) a M#crosoft pricing tactic. Perhaps they have just become too used to selling these small incremental upgrades to their own captive audience.
Wished I could have put it as eloquently as you praetorian_x
As for me, even though the money has been burning a hole in my pocket I am going to sit this one out (again). It's a shame because I love the iMac, but it's just that it's price performance compared to non-Apple hardware is nowhere near compelling enough yet. And if the folks at Cupertino can't even sell a potential (Apple shareholding) switcher like me on their iMacs - they haven't got a hope in hell on most of my games oriented buddies...!
E
evilfunkgenius
Guest
the real question/determining factor
Ok so I have read about people saying that the PowerMac 1ghz is cheaper and faster. (Although, technically, if you fit them up with the same innards the iMac is only $15 more expensive and you get a 17" LCD monitor thrown in in leiu of l3 cache). So what really needs to be asked is:
If the only thing that is different between an iMac and a PowerMac is the presence of L3 cache, how much of a speed difference will I see? (and what will be most affected?)
In weighing the options between getting a new tower and getting an iMac, It basically comes down to that. I really enjoy the iMac styling and would love to own one, but if it is going to be sluggish like my Sawtooth G4 450, then I would probably be better off waiting. (As of now, the plans are to use the Sawtooth as a house server, get an iMac for daily use now and then upgrade to a g5 if/when they ever come out next year.)
Ok so I have read about people saying that the PowerMac 1ghz is cheaper and faster. (Although, technically, if you fit them up with the same innards the iMac is only $15 more expensive and you get a 17" LCD monitor thrown in in leiu of l3 cache). So what really needs to be asked is:
If the only thing that is different between an iMac and a PowerMac is the presence of L3 cache, how much of a speed difference will I see? (and what will be most affected?)
In weighing the options between getting a new tower and getting an iMac, It basically comes down to that. I really enjoy the iMac styling and would love to own one, but if it is going to be sluggish like my Sawtooth G4 450, then I would probably be better off waiting. (As of now, the plans are to use the Sawtooth as a house server, get an iMac for daily use now and then upgrade to a g5 if/when they ever come out next year.)
Re: Pretty Disappointing
Apple knows that iMovie 3.0.1 and iPhoto 2.0 will run a bit too slow on a cheap G3 to make for a truly enjoyable customer experience. It is important for switchers to feel confirmed in their post-switch experience that they made the right choice. Allowing switchers to have a disappointing experience with the central iLife apps will hurt more in the long run than maintaining a slightly more expensive product line which will satisfy consumer expectations. ergo, no $499 or $599 G3 iMac.
Apple knows that iMovie 3.0.1 and iPhoto 2.0 will run a bit too slow on a cheap G3 to make for a truly enjoyable customer experience. It is important for switchers to feel confirmed in their post-switch experience that they made the right choice. Allowing switchers to have a disappointing experience with the central iLife apps will hurt more in the long run than maintaining a slightly more expensive product line which will satisfy consumer expectations. ergo, no $499 or $599 G3 iMac.
Waitting For the 970...(when) (which)
I've saved up $2000 for my next computer and still waitting...
I desperately need the power for virtual software synths and samplers for music.
HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BUY 1ST GEN. of the 970?
From my experience, it is better to wait for the the 2nd gen. at get the bugs worked out.. especially on a $2000+ purchase.
So... WHEN ARE YOU BUYING?
I've saved up $2000 for my next computer and still waitting...
I desperately need the power for virtual software synths and samplers for music.
HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BUY 1ST GEN. of the 970?
From my experience, it is better to wait for the the 2nd gen. at get the bugs worked out.. especially on a $2000+ purchase.
So... WHEN ARE YOU BUYING?
Re: Eh.
Ahhhh a classic example of monitor size fixation.
All I have is a 15" LCD on my PowerMac and use iMovie just fine, 'thank-you-very-much'. I've looked at bigger ones but the cost vs need (everything I have runs fine in 1024x768) ratio just isn't there yet.
I think your fixation with monitor size isn't one that john q public public has. Web surfing, checkbook balancing, game playing and email correspondence can all be done within the confines of a 15" 1024x768 screen.
Maybe you're just sitting too far away from your screen?
Originally posted by snahabed
I sort of think people are off the mark in wanting a 15" superdrive middle iMac model, because only a real entry-level consumer is going to want a tiny little 15" screen; such a consumer is not likely to make great use of a superdrive. iMovie/iDVD on a 15" screen? I guess it can be done, but it cannot be fun!
I think the prices are fair. I just don't know why anyone would want a 15" iMac. This is 2003, baby, 15" screens on a desktop machine? No
Ahhhh a classic example of monitor size fixation.
All I have is a 15" LCD on my PowerMac and use iMovie just fine, 'thank-you-very-much'. I've looked at bigger ones but the cost vs need (everything I have runs fine in 1024x768) ratio just isn't there yet.
I think your fixation with monitor size isn't one that john q public public has. Web surfing, checkbook balancing, game playing and email correspondence can all be done within the confines of a 15" 1024x768 screen.
Maybe you're just sitting too far away from your screen?