eMac and iMac EOL'd?

[titaniumducky]

I agree with that one - pretty much a no-brainer.

So here's something wild and "out there" for you to ponder over. What if the G5 iMac IS released soon, however Apple changes it's platform/product line-up such that eMacs become the new low-end consumer model, the PowerMacs stay as the high-end pro model, but the iMac shifts into a mid-user model, more of a digital hub? They could sport most of what's in a 1.6 G5 PM right now, with of course limited upgradeablility, and end up being more expensive, as a new "mid-range" model - let's say over $2000 for arguement's sake. What about that?

Just some wild, crazy speculation, I doubt it will happen myself - just always like thinking a little bit outside of the box and stirring up the pot...

I'm a little confused here:

The eMac is already the low-end, consumer model, the PowerMac is already the high-end, pro model, and the iMac is already the middle-range, prosumer model. How is what you've suggested, wild, crazy speculation in any way? What's new in this suggestion?

 

[titaniumducky]

I'm a little confused here:

The eMac is already the low-end, consumer model, the PowerMac is already the high-end, pro model, and the iMac is already the middle-range, prosumer model. How is what you've suggested, wild, crazy speculation in any way? What's new in this suggestion?

I just noticed that I'm a MacRumors regular now! Yeah!!!

 

[aswitcher]

snip

Maybe then, with the prices on componenets most likely sliding down some as IBM picks up production of higher-rate parts, we might see an iMac that starts to be what DHM wants. My guess, when we see them, is that the iMacs will spec something like this:

15" LCD
1.6 970FX @ 800FSB with PowerTune active
256MB PC3200
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
80 GB SATA
SuperDrive
AE and Bluetooth ready
$1499

I actually think they may drop the 15" and make the 17" widescreen their base...

17" LCD
1.8 970FX @ 900FSB with PowerTune active
256MB PC3200
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
120 GB SATA
SuperDrive
AE and Bluetooth ready
$1899

20" LCD
2.0 970FX @ 1000FSB with PowerTune active
512MB PC3200
Radeon 9600
120 GB SATA
SuperDrive
AE and Bluetooth ready
$2299

I think 512 RAM as standard...Apple have to bite the bullet on this someday.

I think Bluetooth will be standard, and buyers can choose to have the optional Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

Those clock speeds are nice.

 

[Naimfan]

I actually think they may drop the 15" and make the 17" widescreen their base...
I think 512 RAM as standard...Apple have to bite the bullet on this someday.

I think Bluetooth will be standard, and buyers can choose to have the optional Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

Those clock speeds are nice.

Those are still TOO EXPENSIVE! As others have pointed out, Apple needs an affordable entry level machine to entice people to switch--but only if Apple is serious about getting people to switch. And a $1900 machine is double what it needs to be.

I'm obviously not privy to engineering costs, parts costs, etc., but I would suggest that Apple needs a competitive machine for $899. THAT would be low enough that a lot of people would think about taking the plunge and getting an Apple. At ~$1900, Apple would limit their market dramatically.

Best,

Bob

 

[thatwendigo]

Can't be done. Assuming current models and prices, the low-end tower is a better deal. Teamed with a CRT, it's cheaper than the 20" iMac.

That's exactly my point, and what I've been trying to get through to the whiners who keep saying that there's no cheap single-processor machine.

So here's something wild and "out there" for you to ponder over. What if the G5 iMac IS released soon, however Apple changes it's platform/product line-up such that eMacs become the new low-end consumer model, the PowerMacs stay as the high-end pro model, but the iMac shifts into a mid-user model, more of a digital hub? They could sport most of what's in a 1.6 G5 PM right now, with of course limited upgradeablility, and end up being more expensive, as a new "mid-range" model - let's say over $2000 for arguement's sake. What about that?

Actually, I think I said something to this effect some time ago, back when people were first really yammering about the G5 iMac and how it had to, had to, had to come before PowerBooks did. I think it would be a good move, myself, except that I agree with the people who say that the iMac ought to have a little more parity with the pro line. If Apple were to move it into a middle-market, then I'd like to actually see one or two of the suggestions others have made, and perhaps a resurgence of certain older, CRT iMac characteristics.

Were I to actually want one as badly as these people, this would be my dream... Start with a single 2.0 970FX, set to aggressive PowerTune balancing to manage heat as well as possible, put it on the revised ASIC (which is said to be lower wattage and more efficient), and cut the RAM down to two slots that run up to PC3200 (still allows for 2GB, if you really, really want it). Like the older CRT iMacs, include a graphics port that will accept a card that runs at current high-standards (AGP 8X or PCI Extreme seem nice choices) with the connectors to the built-in LCD right there inside the case. Since it's a media station, allow a single PCI-X or PCI Extreme slot for audio add-ons, or whatever, and offer a BTO for some kind of Dolby Digital solution. Have a full range of concealed ports - 2 FW800, 1 FW400, 3 USB-2, VGA Out. Leave SPDIF and S-Video for the card bays, if at all.

Offer it in three sizes: 17", 20", and 23".

Price: $1900-2000 and up, but actually worth it.

I love the current form factor, I think it's brilliant, but you'd have to do something extremely different to manage all that. That's okay, though, because this is Ives, Jobs, and Apple we're talking about. Think Different is the motto, after all.

 

[thatwendigo]

Those are still TOO EXPENSIVE! As others have pointed out, Apple needs an affordable entry level machine to entice people to switch--but only if Apple is serious about getting people to switch. And a $1900 machine is double what it needs to be.

I'm obviously not privy to engineering costs, parts costs, etc., but I would suggest that Apple needs a competitive machine for $899. THAT would be low enough that a lot of people would think about taking the plunge and getting an Apple. At ~$1900, Apple would limit their market dramatically.

Apple isn't in the market for people who want an $899 computer. They offer one, as it is, for educational reasons. I happen to use one, and it's just fine for everything that I need to do every day, like email, web surfing, listening to music, playing a couple of games, and doing a little Photoshopping here and there.

Here's a hint, though... The components in a G5 that we can spec out at retail on the PC side aren't that cheap. A 250GB SATA drive costs about $1 a GB, or a little less, and the Radeon 9800 Pro (PC version, which doesn't have the custom ADC and mac drivers) is about the same price. That's $500 right there, on the top of the line, and a drop to about $300 for the lower end.

Now, I can't give you real figures for the motherboards, ASIC, processors, and so on, but I can extrapolate a little bit. Looking at motherboards for dual Xeons and dual Opterons, there's only one that I can easily find that even really gets close. It's the Tyan Thunder K8W, with dual Opterons and four slots for RAM running to each processor, one AGP 8x, 4 PCI-X, 1 PCI, SPDIF out, Gigabit ethernerr onboad, and standard audio ports. They support SATA RAID (something the G5s don't do on their own), and have firewire 400, but don't have USB 2. The cost? A cool $440 just for the board, and another $600 for the processors (each a 2.0ghz Opteron), which are lower in the scale and not nearly as expensive as the cutting edge ones.

So, that leaves us at around $1550, just for parts. Admittedly, that's retail prices, but I think we can see where this is going... Apple not only has to recoup R&D on the machine itself, they have to recoup on at least some of the parts (ASIC, at the very least, and likely the processors) and the OS. That's not going to be cheap.

 

[oingoboingo]

So, that leaves us at around $1550, just for parts. Admittedly, that's retail prices, but I think we can see where this is going... Apple not only has to recoup R&D on the machine itself, they have to recoup on at least some of the parts (ASIC, at the very least, and likely the processors) and the OS. That's not going to be cheap.

It's good to put that kind of thing in perspective, because it deflates the kind of arguments where people go "I C4n bu1lD teh 3733+ PC 4 only $350 j00 G5 sux0r5" and we see pages and pages of people fishing out the cheapest PC parts they can find, and then comparing that to a dual 2GHz G5. However, if we're talking about entry level and prosumer systems, it is a little unfair to compare the cost of building a dual Opteron system with a Radeon 9800XT and a 250GB SATA drive...to the cost of the entry level 1.6GHz G5 PowerMac tower.

What I keep thinking throughout this discussion is "what about the Shuttle small form factor PC market?". There is a real explosion in the range and popularity of those 'shoe box' shaped small form factor PCs, and manufacturers are managing to get Athlon 64 chips and high-spec Radeons in there...at good prices too. If companies like Shuttle can stick a hot CPU and GPU into a small little case and cool it with things like heat pipes, then surely Apple will have no problem with something like a 90nm 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz PowerPC 970 in an approximately iMac sized box.

In fact, I think Apple may have more than a little to worry about with those small form factor PCs eating their 'stylish prosumer home machine' lunch. Beige, black, brushed aluminium, iBook white, mini HiFi system...you can pick shoebox PCs up in all kinds of colours and finishes. Team it up with a nice flat panel LCD, and a wireless keyboard and mouse of your choice and I think you've got a nice little 'sexay' looking system...with Athlon 64 muscle if you want it.

Well as we all know, competition is good, so maybe Apple is preparing to deliver a killer blow and everyone on these forums will be too gobsmacked to do anything except re-load the Apple Store page and drool at the new iMacs and eMacs...<cough>

 

[thatwendigo]

It's good to put that kind of thing in perspective, because it deflates the kind of arguments where people go "I C4n bu1lD teh 3733+ PC 4 only $350 j00 G5 sux0r5" and we see pages and pages of people fishing out the cheapest PC parts they can find, and then comparing that to a dual 2GHz G5. However, if we're talking about entry level and prosumer systems, it is a little unfair to compare the cost of building a dual Opteron system with a Radeon 9800XT and a 250GB SATA drive...to the cost of the entry level 1.6GHz G5 PowerMac tower.

I used the Opteron because it's the only dual-chip 64-bit system you can buy on the PC market, and the Tyan is one of the only boards at Newegg that I came across that also supported similar port, RAM, and I/O formats. Also, a dual Opteron system that's a year old (processor-wise), seems a fair comparison to me, since their price has depreciated as the new ones are released. Also, I rather deliberately chose, and specified, that the card I was comparing is a Radeon 9800 Pro, and used the model that Apple would be buying (128 RAM). If you read carefully, I conceded that a lower card and a smaller drive would cut about $200 from the overall price.

What I keep thinking throughout this discussion is "what about the Shuttle small form factor PC market?". There is a real explosion in the range and popularity of those 'shoe box' shaped small form factor PCs, and manufacturers are managing to get Athlon 64 chips and high-spec Radeons in there...at good prices too. If companies like Shuttle can stick a hot CPU and GPU into a small little case and cool it with things like heat pipes, then surely Apple will have no problem with something like a 90nm 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz PowerPC 970 in an approximately iMac sized box.

I think it'll have to be a bit bigger, for reasons of heat dynamics and the sinks that the G5 will need. You're right that the Shuttle holds a pretty impressive array of components for its size, and I do expect Apple could do something amazing if they really put their minds to it. I just don't think that's necessarily what people really want, because complexity equates to expense, and that's doubly true for Apple.

Well as we all know, competition is good, so maybe Apple is preparing to deliver a killer blow and everyone on these forums will be too gobsmacked to do anything except re-load the Apple Store page and drool at the new iMacs and eMacs...<cough>

We can hope.

 

[Opteron]

thatwendigo, makes some excelent points. as well as the post who was talking about the slim line PC's. You can also buy an 15" ACI notebook, that comes with an Athlon 64 3200 (2GHz,1MB L2 Chache, 400MHz FSB,) R9600M, 60GBHDD 7200RPM HDD, 1GB DDR400, DVD+-RW, etc, for much less than a comparable 15" PB.

I know where I'd be spending my money.
I'm however waiting until BTX is released in a month or so. No doubt apple is as well, DDRII, PCI-Express.

 

[Naimfan]

Apple isn't in the market for people who want an $899 computer.

No, they're not, and they desperately need to be. They do NOT need to be in the super-cheap market, but they do need to be able to hook people into the Mac at the sub- 1$K market--IF they are serious about switching people and ever growing their market share in computers. Look, even the CFO of Apple said they need to be in the "sweet spot," which he defined as sub $1K. Apple does not have a competitive machine in that price range. And I own and use an eMac--it is a fine machine. But it is not a viable large market machine--not when you can buy a Compaq or other complete package (competent CPU, LCD) for ~$520 at CompUSA. Yeah, granted, it's not a Mac and doesn't run OSX. But it's there, and available, and it will be faster than no computer at all....

Best,

Bob

 

[jade]

Apple isn't in the market for people who want an $899 computer. They offer one, as it is, for educational reasons. I happen to use one, and it's just fine for everything that I need to do every day, like email, web surfing, listening to music, playing a couple of games, and doing a little Photoshopping here and there.

Unfortunately for Apple's current pricing the VAST majority of computers sold are in the $800-1200. So I agree with Naimfan, Apple needs to be there....where the consumer computers are sold. Apple doesn't need to take over $500 computer market, but Apple is missing the sweet spot by a long shot.

 

[thatwendigo]

No, they're not, and they desperately need to be. They do NOT need to be in the super-cheap market, but they do need to be able to hook people into the Mac at the sub- 1$K market--IF they are serious about switching people and ever growing their market share in computers. Look, even the CFO of Apple said they need to be in the "sweet spot," which he defined as sub $1K. Apple does not have a competitive machine in that price range. And I own and use an eMac--it is a fine machine. But it is not a viable large market machine--not when you can buy a Compaq or other complete package (competent CPU, LCD) for ~$520 at CompUSA. Yeah, granted, it's not a Mac and doesn't run OSX. But it's there, and available, and it will be faster than no computer at all....

Just as with the games market, it may be that this can't be done without serious redefinitions of the marketing, technological arrangements, or huge compromises in what I think of as the standard of quality in Apple. Cheap computers are cheap for a reason, and that's because they're disposable, substandard, and pretty damn crappy. If you want to see a mac that uses shared RAM and integrated graphics, a dumbed-down processor, a tiny drive, and a whole lot of other components that would turn people away from the OS because of how they weren't any better than the PCs around them... Well, that's the path to take.

The sweet spot is marketed at people who buy at Wal Mart, or who don't know what they're doing with a computer. Macs are already new-uwer friendly, and far better than the PC world is at it, but they're nor for the cheap. TANSTAAFL.

 

[Naimfan]

Just as with the games market, it may be that this can't be done without serious redefinitions of the marketing, technological arrangements, or huge compromises in what I think of as the standard of quality in Apple. Cheap computers are cheap for a reason, and that's because they're disposable, substandard, and pretty damn crappy. If you want to see a mac that uses shared RAM and integrated graphics, a dumbed-down processor, a tiny drive, and a whole lot of other components that would turn people away from the OS because of how they weren't any better than the PCs around them... Well, that's the path to take.

The sweet spot is marketed at people who buy at Wal Mart, or who don't know what they're doing with a computer. Macs are already new-uwer friendly, and far better than the PC world is at it, but they're nor for the cheap. TANSTAAFL.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and noted in my original post that I'm certainly not privy to Apples costs. However, IF Apple really does want more people to buy Macs, and to switch, they must provide what the buying public wants. The public votes with their wallet--and they are voting for cheaper, as in sub $1K, computers. When the CFO of Apple says they need to be there, what on earth is the justification for a "consumer" machine retailing for ~$1900? There is none, esp if it is the "entry level." Also remember Anderson said "We will get there...."

Would Apple have to possibly sacrifice some quality to get there? Maybe, but that is a corporate judgment as whether they are better off remaining a tiny niche player or growing larger. My bet is that a ton of people would jump on a sub $1K Mac--Apple could do the original iMac phenomenon all over again. And I'm also confident that the folks at Cupertino are trying to figure out how to do it...

Best,

Bob

PS--I didn't get your tagline "TANSTAAFL" What does it stand for?

 

[oingoboingo]

Just as with the games market, it may be that this can't be done without serious redefinitions of the marketing, technological arrangements, or huge compromises in what I think of as the standard of quality in Apple. Cheap computers are cheap for a reason, and that's because they're disposable, substandard, and pretty damn crappy. If you want to see a mac that uses shared RAM and integrated graphics, a dumbed-down processor, a tiny drive, and a whole lot of other components that would turn people away from the OS because of how they weren't any better than the PCs around them... Well, that's the path to take.

To drag the eMac back into this discussion, I think that even a price reduction on the current eMac (and maybe increase the standard RAM to 256MB) without too many further modifications could really extend Apple's reach further. In Australia, the base eMac (combo drive, 128MB RAM) costs AUD $1349. If Apple could drop that to AUD $999, then that would be a big psychological barrier broken down. The magic '999' figure is then competitive with the cheap deals Dell constantly advertises here in Sydney (pick up a copy of the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday and see what I mean...full colour inserts, full-page ads in the computing section, full-page ads in other sections too...all gloating over their $999 entry level pricing).

As many have pointed out in this thread, the 1GHz eMac is still a capable machine...and with sufficient RAM, makes a solid home web/e-mail/iLife system. But (and there's always a but), not at it's current price point. At AUD $999 (about 25% off current price), maybe the eMac can be used as the same kind of weapon the iPod is being used as...a low cost, low margin, high volume entry path into Apple's world. Hell...imagine a discounted iPod/eMac bundle. If you could walk out of an Apple store here in Australia with an eMac and a 15GB iPod for AUD $1500 together (ie: approximately an AUD $350 discount), that would have to sorely tempt many home buyers away from the cheapy $999 Dell deals shoved in everyone's faces.

BTW, speaking of iPods and the Sydney Morning Herald, there was the usual 'iPod battery life beatup' story last Saturday (no mention that the battery problem was able to be solved by 3rd parties though...), and they mentioned that Apple Centre Taylor Square (dealer in Sydney's inner city) was selling 30 iPods a day last week...and one day in the recent past, they sold 45 iPods in a 2 hour stretch! This might not seem very impressive to the US readers on this forum, but believe me, Apple has nowhere near the presence in Australia as they do in the US. The G5 ad got shown a handful of times last year, and apart from that the only Apple advertising you see in any form of media are for iPods...and before the iPod, you wouldn't know Apple even existed. They don't have the huge, Apple owned Apple Stores like they do in the US...just a much smaller collection of independent dealers, with highly varying levels of service and expertise (in my experience), which basically means picking a dealer is a bit of a crap-shoot.

I'm thinking that a cheaper eMac or iMac and some kind of bundle with the iPod could get a lot more Macs out the door than are currently selling. Ok, too much rambling now. Bye.

 

[thatwendigo]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and noted in my original post that I'm certainly not privy to Apples costs. However, IF Apple really does want more people to buy Macs, and to switch, they must provide what the buying public wants. The public votes with their wallet--and they are voting for cheaper, as in sub $1K, computers. When the CFO of Apple says they need to be there, what on earth is the justification for a "consumer" machine retailing for ~$1900? There is none, esp if it is the "entry level." Also remember Anderson said "We will get there...."

Well, yes, but look who they elected as president. We can't trust them to vote for anything sensible.

Would Apple have to possibly sacrifice some quality to get there? Maybe, but that is a corporate judgment as whether they are better off remaining a tiny niche player or growing larger. My bet is that a ton of people would jump on a sub $1K Mac--Apple could do the original iMac phenomenon all over again. And I'm also confident that the folks at Cupertino are trying to figure out how to do it...

I have no doubt that Apple is working on a way to build cheaper macs, and that they'd like to have something that would be competitive in that space. The problem is, of course, that the market is already flooded down there. Everyone and their bastard fifth-cousin in the computer manufacturing industry has a low-end machine down there. It's a losing game, and it's one reason why all those companies aren't turning profits, even if they sell more units than Apple.

PS--I didn't get your tagline "TANSTAAFL" What does it stand for?

It's from Robert Heinlein's book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or that's where I was first exposed to it. It means, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

 

[thatwendigo]

To drag the eMac back into this discussion....

I'm thinking that a cheaper eMac or iMac and some kind of bundle with the iPod could get a lot more Macs out the door than are currently selling. Ok, too much rambling now. Bye.

Well, for starters, the US eMac is $799 for the base model. You know those computers that need to be under $1k? They are, and for what most everyone who isn't a child uses a computer for, the eMac is perfectly fine. I do just about everything but serious gaming on this thing, and it's not even a member of the current generation. I did opt to expand the RAM to 512, and that's worked out well for me, and I really don't get much in the way of slowdowns on anything day-to-day.

We've hit a wall, folks. Short off some amazing breakthrough, computers are as fast as people actually need them to be, right now. A 700mhz G4 does what Grandma wants it to, pretty quickly, and doesn't eat up the power or put out the heat of an x86 chip. This machine has one fan. One. It doesn't even run all the time, especially not when I let the display go to sleep.

I just uptimed. It's been 12 days since I last rebooted, and that was for an installer. Before that, it was however long it had been since a security update, since I religiously apply those. With my Superdrive, my external speakers, and my iPod, this things serves as the hub of my entertainment life. I'd love to have a faster machine, but it really wasn't a bad buy.

 

[oingoboingo]

Well, for starters, the US eMac is $799 for the base model. You know those computers that need to be under $1k? They are, and for what most everyone who isn't a child uses a computer for, the eMac is perfectly fine. I do just about everything but serious gaming on this thing, and it's not even a member of the current generation. I did opt to expand the RAM to 512, and that's worked out well for me, and I really don't get much in the way of slowdowns on anything day-to-day.

I knew the eMac would be under US $1000. I don't know what the 'magic number' for computer pricing in the US is though...maybe it's $599, but the eMac is $799? I don't know...can someone in the US comment? In Australia, AUD $1000 is about as low as you see brand-name systems go for, and you can get quite a decent system for that money. All I was theorising was that even without any major system updates, an AUD $999 eMac (plus even a little advertising) could really light a fire under Apple's sales here. Any Australians care to comment?

We've hit a wall, folks. Short off some amazing breakthrough, computers are as fast as people actually need them to be, right now. A 700mhz G4 does what Grandma wants it to, pretty quickly, and doesn't eat up the power or put out the heat of an x86 chip. This machine has one fan. One. It doesn't even run all the time, especially not when I let the display go to sleep.

For many tasks, yes (I'm deliberately steering clear of gaming in this instance, but I still think it's important). But for the whole 'digital hub' aspect of Apple's apparent pitch, wouldn't you say that things like video editing are big CPU and disk hogs? It's something that people at home didn't really think about using their machines for a few years ago. Now Apple bundles one of the best entry-level video editing apps available, for free. Where there are spare CPU cycles, there will be new apps available to eat them up.

Geez I should really close my macrumors Safari window and do some work

 

[thatwendigo]

I knew the eMac would be under US $1000. I don't know what the 'magic number' for computer pricing in the US is though...maybe it's $599, but the eMac is $799? I don't know...can someone in the US comment? In Australia, AUD $1000 is about as low as you see brand-name systems go for, and you can get quite a decent system for that money. All I was theorising was that even without any major system updates, an AUD $999 eMac (plus even a little advertising) could really light a fire under Apple's sales here. Any Australians care to comment?

I'm in the US, but I can't really comment. I avoid that market segment like the plague that it is.

For many tasks, yes (I'm deliberately steering clear of gaming in this instance, but I still think it's important). But for the whole 'digital hub' aspect of Apple's apparent pitch, wouldn't you say that things like video editing are big CPU and disk hogs? It's something that people at home didn't really think about using their machines for a few years ago. Now Apple bundles one of the best entry-level video editing apps available, for free. Where there are spare CPU cycles, there will be new apps available to eat them up.

One word: XGrid.

I've got the tech beta running on my network. Essentially, I have a cluster that, when proper programming shows up, can share out tasks across the machines and reassemble the packets. When you need extra cylces, your machine can look for idle time on a virtually neighboring box and chew it up (if the settings are right). This will probably be of more benefit to print shops, video editors, and so on, who can leave their machines on for coworkers to benefit from while they're not active, but it's still a cool idea.

 

[jade]

I'm in the US, but I can't really comment. I avoid that market segment like the plague that it is.



One word: XGrid.

I've got the tech beta running on my network. Essentially, I have a cluster that, when proper programming shows up, can share out tasks across the machines and reassemble the packets. When you need extra cylces, your machine can look for idle time on a virtually neighboring box and chew it up (if the settings are right). This will probably be of more benefit to print shops, video editors, and so on, who can leave their machines on for coworkers to benefit from while they're not active, but it's still a cool idea.

Yeah but that macs another assumption...you have 2 macs to use it with. What if you only have one ...or you have a PC???

 

[aswitcher]

I knew the eMac would be under US $1000. I don't know what the 'magic number' for computer pricing in the US is though...maybe it's $599, but the eMac is $799? I don't know...can someone in the US comment? In Australia, AUD $1000 is about as low as you see brand-name systems go for, and you can get quite a decent system for that money. All I was theorising was that even without any major system updates, an AUD $999 eMac (plus even a little advertising) could really light a fire under Apple's sales here. Any Australians care to comment?

Well an eMac for <$1000 would be amazing in Australia.

Currently the low end model is $1349.

It needs a RAM upgrade for $77 to 256 RAM to be even remotely usable.

So thats $1426...

The US is $799 which is what about $1075 or something + RAM...

So yes, a sub $1000 would be amazing but unlikely....

 

[aswitcher]

Those are still TOO EXPENSIVE! As others have pointed out, Apple needs an affordable entry level machine to entice people to switch--but only if Apple is serious about getting people to switch. And a $1900 machine is double what it needs to be.

I'm obviously not privy to engineering costs, parts costs, etc., but I would suggest that Apple needs a competitive machine for $899. THAT would be low enough that a lot of people would think about taking the plunge and getting an Apple. At ~$1900, Apple would limit their market dramatically.

Best,

Bob

I am not talking about taking on PC users at the low end. I am talking about machines at the pro-consumer...an area that the G4iMac has slipped away from because of its processor and associated hardware.

eMacs are around $900 with decent ram for switchers who want something servicable and cheap. That markets covered, although a few upgrades and tweaks are due.

 

[nargot]

Well an eMac for <$1000 would be amazing in Australia.

Currently the low end model is $1349.

It needs a RAM upgrade for $77 to 256 RAM to be even remotely usable.

So thats $1426...

The US is $799 which is what about $1075 or something + RAM...

So yes, a sub $1000 would be amazing but unlikely....

It is quite likely for education users (which the emac is aimed at). As it is 1,268 now, and could possibly drop that little bit more to $999 to compete with the dell boxes that are pushed to institutions nowdays.

 

[aswitcher]

SNIP

As many have pointed out in this thread, the 1GHz eMac is still a capable machine...and with sufficient RAM, makes a solid home web/e-mail/iLife system. But (and there's always a but), not at it's current price point. At AUD $999 (about 25% off current price), maybe the eMac can be used as the same kind of weapon the iPod is being used as...a low cost, low margin, high volume entry path into Apple's world. Hell...imagine a discounted iPod/eMac bundle. If you could walk out of an Apple store here in Australia with an eMac and a 15GB iPod for AUD $1500 together (ie: approximately an AUD $350 discount), that would have to sorely tempt many home buyers away from the cheapy $999 Dell deals shoved in everyone's faces.

SNIP

I'm thinking that a cheaper eMac or iMac and some kind of bundle with the iPod could get a lot more Macs out the door than are currently selling. Ok, too much rambling now. Bye.

If they could do this then I pray they would make sure that the base machine of the new rev had at least 256RAM, else people are immediately going to whinge about performance...

I think it would be a winner at that price point, I just don't know how feasible that is.

 

[aswitcher]

It is quite likely for education users (which the emac is aimed at). As it is 1,268 now, and could possibly drop that little bit more to $999 to compete with the dell boxes that are pushed to institutions nowdays.

Yep...some sort of package.

Another option is OEM copies of the new Microsoft Office when it comes out, to keep the price down and make Switchers move more comfortably across...

Maybe the next eMac rev at $1499 with the new MS office, 256 RAM (512 if they can), the swivel stand...would handle most Consumer level stuff easily...

Link in a deal with the iPod or anyone who purchases an iPod Mini - a great student/school package if they bundled that for under $1999

 

[nargot]

Yep...some sort of package.

Another option is OEM copies of the new Microsoft Office when it comes out, to keep the price down and make Switchers move more comfortably across...

Maybe the next eMac rev at $1499 with the new MS office, 256 RAM (512 if they can), the swivel stand...would handle most Consumer level stuff easily...

Link in a deal with the iPod or anyone who purchases an iPod Mini - a great student/school package if they bundled that for under $1999

For sure, its going to be a big let down if they don't do something smart like that. Apple really need to make a move in australia as they are being pushed out of institutions again (granted some institutions are getting more macs, but in brisbane its more of the opposite). If they can release a g5 emac setup as above, i'll buy one to replace my dated imac.