i think there is still enough space in the apple lineup to accomodate this idea...and still keep the emac
for lots of models and confusion, look at dell or hp/compaq
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.
Low End G4 Box?
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think there is still enough space in the apple lineup to accomodate this idea...and still keep the emac
for lots of models and confusion, look at dell or hp/compaq
compaq and dell can do that because they confuse people. i was confused because they have so many different models. they don't even have names. just Dell Portable 507-90 or something like that.
my compaq pc is a presario 1272 model among many 1200 series presario laptops of the time, while my mac is simply an ibook...easy to remember and recommend to other people
Room for all models in new lineup
I think we need to look a bit outside the box at this rumor. There will be room for all of these models in the new Apple lineup.
Lets assume that the iMac, Powermac, Powerbook all go 970. That covers high end expandable pros, higher end home consumer and portables.
Enhance the eMac for education with better processor speed in a G4, Video, etc. to keep it current, and keep it as an education machine. Have a box G4 for the low end market.
Lets be realistic, there are a number of cheapo PCs at the $600.00 price point. Costco has a eMachines 1.2 Celeron, 30 gig drive, 256 memory SHARED video, CDRW, 17 CRT. If apple has a 800 to 1.2 G4, with 32 Radeon 95xx series, plus at least 256 ram, it will kick this low end market nicely. Lower end P4 (crippled variety) exist sub $1000 but that is where the low end imac with 970 can come in. Keep in mind that there is a P4 that is fats and a P4 with old architecture that may clock fast but overall lacks in performance due to ram, an cache issues. Those are the barebones, Often they lack wireless, and firewire as a standard.
Schools and the education market need something like the eMac. an all in one is beneficial to schools. Less to get lost or separated. Most schools do not upgrade as much as wholesale replace machines, so the limited expandibility is less of an option. and I know at my university, the Dell baseline machine pales in comparison to the eMac baseline for the SAME cost.
I know we all would LOVE an expandable mac, with lots of ram, awesome video card, pci slots to spare, etc etc. But that is the tower. You want the low end market for peopel that use office, surf, and do email, play games like tetris, or the like. Not Doom 3. Few business situations demand high end graphics, and mass storage expandability. lets be realistic, the average home PC user does NOT need vast storage, the top of the line video card (keep in mind the avg PC in the US has less than a GeForce 2 MX, that is the LCD for games in the pc market), and expandability. In fact, most PC users I know that are not 'tech geeks' have never opened thier PC, and are happy with Compaqs and HPs even with the proprietery hardware inside. A box G4 would be ideal for them, as the performance of a 800+ G4 for TYPICAL uses liek Safari, appleworks/Office, email, simple games, would be more than adequate. Those that need more performance can go with a lowend tower or imac depending on needs. The folks that need expandability, upgradability, powerstorage, etc. will go with the tower. But apple is and has neglected the average consumer and they really do not know what they are missing or need and will buy the cheapest machines that allows them to do the basics. a G4 box for under $600 plus monitor (VGA NOT ADC!!!) will help this area.
Look at this from a business model and not what we all wish we could get from Apple. Look at some stats about what the average US household PC is. Last time I checked, it averages a P3, 700 mhz, 128 ram and shared video. The average business machine in offices is even less. Most consumers do not buy a new machines yearly, and you have to look at 3 and 5 year purchase cycles. That said, many PPC 603/4 are still out there on the mac side as well, that this box could be the 'sweet deal' to get them to finally upgrade. Keep the old monitor on that performa or quadra and upgrade to a G4. remember, moving to a 800 g4 from a 180 Performa 6400 is going to be magical. Likewise moving from a p2 333 to a g4 is going to be magic. This machine is not going for the p4 2.4 gig market, the 970 based Macs willd eal with that segment.
I think we need to look a bit outside the box at this rumor. There will be room for all of these models in the new Apple lineup.
Lets assume that the iMac, Powermac, Powerbook all go 970. That covers high end expandable pros, higher end home consumer and portables.
Enhance the eMac for education with better processor speed in a G4, Video, etc. to keep it current, and keep it as an education machine. Have a box G4 for the low end market.
Lets be realistic, there are a number of cheapo PCs at the $600.00 price point. Costco has a eMachines 1.2 Celeron, 30 gig drive, 256 memory SHARED video, CDRW, 17 CRT. If apple has a 800 to 1.2 G4, with 32 Radeon 95xx series, plus at least 256 ram, it will kick this low end market nicely. Lower end P4 (crippled variety) exist sub $1000 but that is where the low end imac with 970 can come in. Keep in mind that there is a P4 that is fats and a P4 with old architecture that may clock fast but overall lacks in performance due to ram, an cache issues. Those are the barebones, Often they lack wireless, and firewire as a standard.
Schools and the education market need something like the eMac. an all in one is beneficial to schools. Less to get lost or separated. Most schools do not upgrade as much as wholesale replace machines, so the limited expandibility is less of an option. and I know at my university, the Dell baseline machine pales in comparison to the eMac baseline for the SAME cost.
I know we all would LOVE an expandable mac, with lots of ram, awesome video card, pci slots to spare, etc etc. But that is the tower. You want the low end market for peopel that use office, surf, and do email, play games like tetris, or the like. Not Doom 3. Few business situations demand high end graphics, and mass storage expandability. lets be realistic, the average home PC user does NOT need vast storage, the top of the line video card (keep in mind the avg PC in the US has less than a GeForce 2 MX, that is the LCD for games in the pc market), and expandability. In fact, most PC users I know that are not 'tech geeks' have never opened thier PC, and are happy with Compaqs and HPs even with the proprietery hardware inside. A box G4 would be ideal for them, as the performance of a 800+ G4 for TYPICAL uses liek Safari, appleworks/Office, email, simple games, would be more than adequate. Those that need more performance can go with a lowend tower or imac depending on needs. The folks that need expandability, upgradability, powerstorage, etc. will go with the tower. But apple is and has neglected the average consumer and they really do not know what they are missing or need and will buy the cheapest machines that allows them to do the basics. a G4 box for under $600 plus monitor (VGA NOT ADC!!!) will help this area.
Look at this from a business model and not what we all wish we could get from Apple. Look at some stats about what the average US household PC is. Last time I checked, it averages a P3, 700 mhz, 128 ram and shared video. The average business machine in offices is even less. Most consumers do not buy a new machines yearly, and you have to look at 3 and 5 year purchase cycles. That said, many PPC 603/4 are still out there on the mac side as well, that this box could be the 'sweet deal' to get them to finally upgrade. Keep the old monitor on that performa or quadra and upgrade to a G4. remember, moving to a 800 g4 from a 180 Performa 6400 is going to be magical. Likewise moving from a p2 333 to a g4 is going to be magic. This machine is not going for the p4 2.4 gig market, the 970 based Macs willd eal with that segment.
Lol, BS. They have names......Latitude & Inspiron.
Infact, its funny, both lines use the same boards. They used to be different, now they are primarly the same machines, marketted towards different groups.
Infact, an argument to what some people have mentioned, an XStation could be possible. The XServe has been promoted as a workstation, but who wants a machine that deep? Apple could easily use the XServe motherboard in an XStation tower, add some drive bays, etc, and have a machine well suited for a different market, but with minimal overhead because its using the same components.
At this point, I don't think it will have much of an impact on the Power Macs. They will probably be using another chip (probably 970) by the time this hits. Power users will still buy the $1500+ machine and others will buy the miniMac (~$500 - cheapMac, cMac
).The eMac will probably be dead. The iMac should still be fine (although the 15" model needs to go at this point). If the the miniMac does not have the SuperDrive option, then the iMac is a little more secure.
I would like to see a new cube with:
G4 or new G3 if IBM does build one with Alitvec
combo drive (DVD/CD-R)
3 SIMM slots
2 USB 1.1
1 Firewire 400
speaker ports
no modem
airport slot (maybe extreme)
graphic card that gets full use out of Quartz Extreme (must out-of-the-box be able to hook to a PC monitor (adapter or native port)).
keyboard, mouse
$599
why 1.1?
Why not USB 2.0? There's no downside to having USB 2.0.... Demand the current technology - not what was new in 1996!
Why not USB 2.0? There's no downside to having USB 2.0.... Demand the current technology - not what was new in 1996!
Re: why 1.1?
Price. If it is cheaper and we are talking about using what Apple has ready, I'm cool with USB 1.1, firewire is Apple's speed product. If it is the same price as 2.0, then cool. Same reason I didn't say Firewire 800.
Also, I forgot the ethernet on my spec (been living wireless too long).
Price. If it is cheaper and we are talking about using what Apple has ready, I'm cool with USB 1.1, firewire is Apple's speed product. If it is the same price as 2.0, then cool. Same reason I didn't say Firewire 800.
Also, I forgot the ethernet on my spec (been living wireless too long).
Doesn't make much sense to me. If I was switching from a PC, I'd want to keep my PC (with monitor) around (backup, games, kids, whatever) and have a Mac with a monitor, so a headless doesn't excite me.
I can't see a large market for it in education either, the iMac has been around for 5 years, replacing an iMac with a headless & monitor makes no sense if you can go with an eMac for less.
Big business, forget about it, most corporations are notoriously conservative, heck, it's tough enough to get them to use AMD processors...
I can't see a large market for it in education either, the iMac has been around for 5 years, replacing an iMac with a headless & monitor makes no sense if you can go with an eMac for less.
Big business, forget about it, most corporations are notoriously conservative, heck, it's tough enough to get them to use AMD processors...
apple has one of the largest product catalogues it has ever had, and i dont see them expanding it anymore with another consumer machine. that is what the eMac was for. and as far as letting users use their old pc monitors, it is pretty clear that apple doesnt want that to happen, it is why all their consumer products have built in monitors, and they have eliminated their low-end lcd's and crt's.
G4 box
This is what I was sort of looking for last year before I switched.
I had some ideas also about the design.
The name I came up with was the "MacBlock" (tm)
Apple does need a "budget Mac", but it also needs a better power line. (970)
-I.
17" iMac 768 ram Superdrive 1 ghz
This is what I was sort of looking for last year before I switched.
I had some ideas also about the design.
The name I came up with was the "MacBlock" (tm)
Apple does need a "budget Mac", but it also needs a better power line. (970)
-I.
17" iMac 768 ram Superdrive 1 ghz
Re: sense
i don't know that emacs are a big barrier to imac sales...i think it's maybe more the price of the imacs that is contributing to their stellar lack of success. everyone i know thinks flat-panel imacs are the coolest computers in the world, no one i know would ever actually buy one.
i'm not sure why everyone's so down on emacs...i have one, i've had it for almost a year, and it's great little (but heavy!!!) computer. the only thing i don't like about it is the inability to upgrade the graphics card. if a low-cost headless mac is introduced i think it would be a big mistake to greatly limit it's expandability. i don't think that a relatively expandable (RAM, video card, storage) low-cost mac would come into conflict with emacs...the differences in displays (with/without) and expandablity would be obvious. the emac still has a relatively short lifespan anyway though, if only because it still uses CRT technology which apple is obviously trying to phase out over time.
i don't know that emacs are a big barrier to imac sales...i think it's maybe more the price of the imacs that is contributing to their stellar lack of success. everyone i know thinks flat-panel imacs are the coolest computers in the world, no one i know would ever actually buy one.
i'm not sure why everyone's so down on emacs...i have one, i've had it for almost a year, and it's great little (but heavy!!!) computer. the only thing i don't like about it is the inability to upgrade the graphics card. if a low-cost headless mac is introduced i think it would be a big mistake to greatly limit it's expandability. i don't think that a relatively expandable (RAM, video card, storage) low-cost mac would come into conflict with emacs...the differences in displays (with/without) and expandablity would be obvious. the emac still has a relatively short lifespan anyway though, if only because it still uses CRT technology which apple is obviously trying to phase out over time.
one of the largest catalogs its ever had? you got to be kidding me right? Plus, how can you compete with 5 products, when the competition is doing great with 10? You need a machine to fill every segment. What you dont need, like in the olden days, is multiple machines for every segment.
eMac makes sense....in education, kids break things...no LCD there is a good thing.
iMac makes since, some people like the all in one.
iBox makes sense, some people like low-end, barebones machiens.
PowerMac makes sense, fills its niche.
XStation & XServe also have their markets they fill nicely.
I partially agree with you. However, I do think that people would switch if they had a cheaper headless computer that has limited upgradability. I wish Apple had kept the 15" Studio display. It would have been a good starter screen and at the right price could get people hooked on the dual displays so that maybe they upgrade to the bigger and better.
Better late than never (sheepish grin)
Here is a precise translation from French of the MacPlus article by your's truly. Sorry if it comes so late in the discussion, but I just saw this thread. It might clear up certain ambiguities and provide additional info:
"Cube or pizza box? (Rumour)
According to a source in which we have complete confidence, Apple would be considering remodeling it's lineup of business computers: alongside the iMac and PowerMac they would be selling a "box", aimed at the entry-level segment (this would then probably be the end of the eMac). In a report totalling over 400 pages turned in several weeks ago by a "marketing/design cell", they ponder different possibilities for it's enclosure (pizza box, cube, semi-sphere and "slim tower" are considered); on it's base configuration (built around a G4 processor, 32 MiB graphics card, and 256 MiB of RAM) and especially how many different configurations should be offered for sale.
One of the conclusions is particularily interesting: "taking into account a production cost of 480$ to 520$ depending on which configuration is retained, a retail price of 599$ is possible". The marketing impact of such a machine is evaluated as "quite positive towards penetrating the general public and SOHO markets", with estimated sales of 70,000 to 80,000 units/month the first year, limited impact on sales of "pro" machines, and an induced reduction of 8 to 12% on iMac sales.
Lets not get carried away on the impact of this information: even though this report (and undoubtedly dozens of others, of varying content) is circulating in the inner circles in Cupertino, it does not mean that action will ensue.
Ormerry"
Minor caveat: In the first paragraph of the original article, the term used in place of my "marketing/design cell" is «cellule de prospective». I'm not 100% certain that my translation for this is correct, as that expression is not used in Quebec. It's probably something particular to France. I extrapolated the meaning from the context.
Here is a precise translation from French of the MacPlus article by your's truly. Sorry if it comes so late in the discussion, but I just saw this thread. It might clear up certain ambiguities and provide additional info:
"Cube or pizza box? (Rumour)
According to a source in which we have complete confidence, Apple would be considering remodeling it's lineup of business computers: alongside the iMac and PowerMac they would be selling a "box", aimed at the entry-level segment (this would then probably be the end of the eMac). In a report totalling over 400 pages turned in several weeks ago by a "marketing/design cell", they ponder different possibilities for it's enclosure (pizza box, cube, semi-sphere and "slim tower" are considered); on it's base configuration (built around a G4 processor, 32 MiB graphics card, and 256 MiB of RAM) and especially how many different configurations should be offered for sale.
One of the conclusions is particularily interesting: "taking into account a production cost of 480$ to 520$ depending on which configuration is retained, a retail price of 599$ is possible". The marketing impact of such a machine is evaluated as "quite positive towards penetrating the general public and SOHO markets", with estimated sales of 70,000 to 80,000 units/month the first year, limited impact on sales of "pro" machines, and an induced reduction of 8 to 12% on iMac sales.
Lets not get carried away on the impact of this information: even though this report (and undoubtedly dozens of others, of varying content) is circulating in the inner circles in Cupertino, it does not mean that action will ensue.
Ormerry"
Minor caveat: In the first paragraph of the original article, the term used in place of my "marketing/design cell" is «cellule de prospective». I'm not 100% certain that my translation for this is correct, as that expression is not used in Quebec. It's probably something particular to France. I extrapolated the meaning from the context.
I don't see the eMac going away. Why would they update it only to discontinue it a few months later.
I think the eMac fills a very nice niche for Apple. What happens to families who want a nice all-in-one for their first real computer? They don't need to know anything about expansion bays, PCI slots or how fast their AGP slot is. They don't want to fiddle with wires or upgrade their HDDs. They just want something that works when you hit the on switch, no questions asked.
I can see Apple hobbiests and do-it-yourselfers being drawn to a head-less Mac. A bare-bones kit with just enough expansion to keep you happy, at a price that won't break the bank. I'd buy one.
I think the eMac fills a very nice niche for Apple. What happens to families who want a nice all-in-one for their first real computer? They don't need to know anything about expansion bays, PCI slots or how fast their AGP slot is. They don't want to fiddle with wires or upgrade their HDDs. They just want something that works when you hit the on switch, no questions asked.
I can see Apple hobbiests and do-it-yourselfers being drawn to a head-less Mac. A bare-bones kit with just enough expansion to keep you happy, at a price that won't break the bank. I'd buy one.
Hey ZeeOwl, you should become the official French translator/interpretor for Macrumors.
Great translation.
Great translation.
Re: Translation
Geez Thanks
That's what you get for living in a French province surrounded by English. lol
Just an FYI in case it wasn't clear from my translation. The "Death of the eMac comment" is speculation on MacPlus' part. It is not part of the report from Apple.
Originally posted by job
Hey ZeeOwl, you should become the official French translator/interpretor for Macrumors.
Great translation.
Geez Thanks
That's what you get for living in a French province surrounded by English. lol
Just an FYI in case it wasn't clear from my translation. The "Death of the eMac comment" is speculation on MacPlus' part. It is not part of the report from Apple.
Thin client
After reading the updated article translation, I have this to say...
Long ago, IBM came up with a OS called WSOD ( Work Space On Demand ) . This was basically a network client system that was comprised of a thin client without a Hard Disc, but contained a strong processor and a decent video card. This machine booted from the network, and all storage was contained there. While it was not the rave success that many thought it would be, the concept has had success in the enterprise space.
Just think for a moment. Apple has an advanced fibre channel RAID system connect to ( possibly ) a new 64Bit XServe system that may be able to contain Many Many Gib of memory. The client would be a 733 MHz G4 cube with only a Giganet connector and a display.
Sounds like Apple is looking to create a larger niche in the Enterprise space. $500 clients can do this.
Max
After reading the updated article translation, I have this to say...
Long ago, IBM came up with a OS called WSOD ( Work Space On Demand ) . This was basically a network client system that was comprised of a thin client without a Hard Disc, but contained a strong processor and a decent video card. This machine booted from the network, and all storage was contained there. While it was not the rave success that many thought it would be, the concept has had success in the enterprise space.
Just think for a moment. Apple has an advanced fibre channel RAID system connect to ( possibly ) a new 64Bit XServe system that may be able to contain Many Many Gib of memory. The client would be a 733 MHz G4 cube with only a Giganet connector and a display.
Sounds like Apple is looking to create a larger niche in the Enterprise space. $500 clients can do this.
Max
VGA (connection for standard CRT monitors) is a standard across the computing industry. since when has apple come with its own proprietary connections?
Didn't Steve declare the death of the CRT a while ago?
The eMac is the only CRT machine in the Apple lineup, with the original iMac being gone. It seems to me a machine like this would be a great way to have a low-end Mac without a CRT.
Just a thought.
The eMac is the only CRT machine in the Apple lineup, with the original iMac being gone. It seems to me a machine like this would be a great way to have a low-end Mac without a CRT.
Just a thought.
Sounds bogus to me...
If this is a lifted tale, straight form the pages of an internal Apple document, then every detail in this story should be correct. If one detail is wrong, it tells me the whole story is concocted.
This story purports that the Aple team stated that a $599 retail price would go well with a manufacturing cost in the $480 to $520 range. That's so laughably absurd, that it pretty well kills this whole story's veracity.
Apple works on a gross margin of about 50% against MSRP, meaning, if they are shooting for an MSRP of $599, then their hard production cost, retail packaged, would be at or under $300... not $500, as this silly story claims.
Do I doubt Apple is considering such a headless desktop system? No. They most certainly are considering such a product. Do I doubt the publishers of this article ever had access to the claimed internal Apple report?... oh yeah.
It's bogus.
If this is a lifted tale, straight form the pages of an internal Apple document, then every detail in this story should be correct. If one detail is wrong, it tells me the whole story is concocted.
This story purports that the Aple team stated that a $599 retail price would go well with a manufacturing cost in the $480 to $520 range. That's so laughably absurd, that it pretty well kills this whole story's veracity.
Apple works on a gross margin of about 50% against MSRP, meaning, if they are shooting for an MSRP of $599, then their hard production cost, retail packaged, would be at or under $300... not $500, as this silly story claims.
Do I doubt Apple is considering such a headless desktop system? No. They most certainly are considering such a product. Do I doubt the publishers of this article ever had access to the claimed internal Apple report?... oh yeah.
It's bogus.