Originally posted by Rockridge
Without a doubt... as i predicted, the new iMac is tanking so out come the eMac...with little fanfare...
Originally posted by Rockridge
Without a doubt... as i predicted, the new iMac is tanking so out come the eMac...with little fanfare...
Originally posted by A. Rastetter
I personally think that the eMac was introduced for education and that's how it should have stayed. I think apple made a mistake by opening it up to the consumer market since its design is so similar to the original imac.
originally posted by Abercrombieboy
WTF? I think Apple was very smart to introduce the eMac to the public and how was it a mistake since the design is similar to the orginal iMac? The design is a well known design and is still quite popular. If people are buying it then how is it a mistake? I guess I just don't see your point in that statement.
Originally posted by AlphaTech
The design identifies it as an Apple product without giving it more then a glance. In that aspect, it was very smart of Apple. Another part that was smart, is the use of the G4 chip and 17" display.
Apple listened to what people wanted, and delivered, as they tend to do (even if it does take a little longer then we would like).
Originally posted by The Journalist
I see it this way:
The eMac is a G4 that's less expensive than a G3 iBook. Case closed![]()
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Yes. True. But you're forgettings something-- the iBook features a lcd screen and a small package that requires more R&D than an eMac, which probably was an iMac reject design.
Therefore, the R&D costs are offset by the initial flood of pre-orders for the lcd iMac, combined with any education sale of the eMac. If we were talking eMac developed as the iMac (instead of the LCD for example) the eMac would be a lot more.
You make a very valid point, yes, it costs less. Doesn't mean there's not logical reasons for it. You know???
And there are. laptop comopnents are more expensive + design and research costs = higher priced ibook. Even if the iBook had a g4 500 in it, it'd still be more expensive that the eMac. So what's your point?
Originally posted by The Journalist
I understand all this, but it seems goofy to have such a cheap G4 when there are G3's for more, even if it is a laptop.
You also call the LCD a feature, but i have doubts. Yes, there's not an option there for laptops...but that's off the subject
My point is: I think the eMac is great, and the iBook, nice, but ec. Nothing against it, but more for the eMac.
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Tanked. WTF! Dude, they outsold the original. They had to raise the price, and the economy slowed so that is the reason. People love the new iMac.
Originally posted by bobindashadows
They did? Didn't they sell like 6 million old iMacs?
Originally posted by bbarnhart
I'll run down to MicroCenter today and buy a new eMac, but the monitor has a low refresh rate at 1280 x 960 (?). I can see the flicker.
The iMac's screen in too small (in pixels) and costs $300 more.
Originally posted by Spock
I want to see Apple release a low-cost Powermac just put the guts of the iMac in a Qs case stick a PCI and a AGP slot in it and call it a day
Originally posted by Moxiemike
The last point i'll make is people pay a premium for portability. My buddy bought an iBook 600 / Combo / 20gb drive, fro what, 1500 bucks when he could have had (at this point in time before the increases) and iMac g4 700 / combo / 40gb drive and nice speakers and bigger screen for the same dinero. But he wanted something portable and is ok with the slower speed. And he edits photos. In X.