New iMac with 17"

mymemory

macrumors 68020
Original poster
May 9, 2001
2,495
0
Miami
I saw the new iMac last week, the base was a big bigger of what I expected and is a heavy thing!

But what called my attention was the size of the LCD. The border takes a lot of room, it is a frame, inside a frame, inside another frame. May be to make it looks a big bigger (or to place notes on it). I can tell there is too much material there. What's bring me to the conclusion that it is about the size of a 17" display, of course a display without so much in frames around.

I'm so sure that there will be an iMac with a 17" display in the next line, for sure as the hi end model.

Opinions?
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,427
1,705
Re: New iMac with 17"

Originally posted by mymemory

I'm so sure that there will be an iMac with a 17" display in the next line, for sure as the hi end model.

Opinions?
I very much doubt Apple will create a 17" iMac...

First... it would price it out of range... Apple's clearly already riding a fine line with the iMac...

but even if cost weren't the issue... Apple has traditionally been very conscious about distinguishing it's Pro and Consumer lines. A 17" iMac would blur these lines even more.

arn
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
I strongly doubt it. For this short while where LCD prices are sky-high it would not make sense to put in a larger monitor.

Currently, the 15 inch monitor is around $600 to $700 for Apple. By adding even two inches you increase the value by over $400. So that means you would be spending over $1000 on just the monitor.

Then, you would have to add a hard drive, maybe 60GB, for $100, some 256MB RAM for starters for another $100 to $200, the Pro Speakers, Pro Mouse and Pro Keyboard, which round of to $180, a fast G4 for, I guess $300, a Superdrive for the high-end model, which costs around $500, and the rest.

This brings the total up to more than $2400. Apple wants Professional Mac users to use Pro Macintosh computers, such as a Dual 800MHz with Superdrive Powermac that can be upgraded, not an iMac that is supposed to resemble a Pro Line Apple Computer.

Overall, it just is not worth it for Apple to try and beat the high LCD prices and add an expensive monitor for the iMac, which costs almost half the price of the whole system, but rather to progress in what is the most appropriate manner. And in between the iMac and PowerMac, both pricewise and detail-wise, Apple wants to separate the two from main line and pro line.
__________________

It does not take a genius to figure it out . . . just someone who uses a Mac.
 

MacAztec

macrumors 68040
Oct 28, 2001
3,023
1
San Luis Obispo, CA
Try Again

Originally posted by King Cobra
I strongly doubt it. For this short while where LCD prices are sky-high it would not make sense to put in a larger monitor.

Currently, the 15 inch monitor is around $600 to $700 for Apple. By adding even two inches you increase the value by over $400. So that means you would be spending over $1000 on just the monitor.

Then, you would have to add a hard drive, maybe 60GB, for $100, some 256MB RAM for starters for another $100 to $200, the Pro Speakers, Pro Mouse and Pro Keyboard, which round of to $180, a fast G4 for, I guess $300, a Superdrive for the high-end model, which costs around $500, and the rest.

This brings the total up to more than $2400. Apple wants Professional Mac users to use Pro Macintosh computers, such as a Dual 800MHz with Superdrive Powermac that can be upgraded, not an iMac that is supposed to resemble a Pro Line Apple Computer.

Overall, it just is not worth it for Apple to try and beat the high LCD prices and add an expensive monitor for the iMac, which costs almost half the price of the whole system, but rather to progress in what is the most appropriate manner. And in between the iMac and PowerMac, both pricewise and detail-wise, Apple wants to separate the two from main line and pro line.
__________________

It does not take a genius to figure it out . . . just someone who uses a Mac.
If apple ever put a 17in monitor on the iMac...it would not be 2499. I mean, if there WAS a 17in on the iMac, the low end would probly only be around 1749. Apple would be making these as cheap as possible.
 

Hemingray

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2002
2,913
25
Ha ha haaa!
Re: Try Again

Originally posted by MacAztec (formerly Mac_User)


If apple ever put a 17in monitor on the iMac...it would not be 2499. I mean, if there WAS a 17in on the iMac, the low end would probly only be around 1749. Apple would be making these as cheap as possible.
Exactly, which supports the whole idea that it isn't a possibility at this point due to LCD prices. Maybe two or more years down the road, but not any time soon. They just RAISED the iMac price by $100, that should say something for any of those thinking Apple will release a 17" iMac soon if at all.
 

rekras

macrumors regular
Sep 3, 2001
172
0
NJ
Re: New iMac with 17"

Originally posted by mymemory
But what called my attention was the size of the LCD. The border takes a lot of room, it is a frame, inside a frame, inside another frame. May be to make it looks a big bigger (or to place notes on it). I can tell there is too much material there. What's bring me to the conclusion that it is about the size of a 17" display, of course a display without so much in frames around.

Opinions?
The large frame around the LCD is meant for users to position the screen with. I find the frame convient and functional.
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,897
0
Metairie, LA
the frame around the iMac...

I thought the intention of the frame around the lcd was to be able to grab and position it wherever u wanted...?
 

eirik

macrumors regular
Mar 17, 2002
155
0
Leesburg, VA
iMac 17" rationale/assumptions

If demand is far exceeding supply for the immediate forseable future, thereby limiting the number of iMac's that Apple can ship, then it is better to ship a new high-end 17" iMac at a higher price than to ship nothing at all, incrementally speaking.

For example (the actual numbers don't really matter), what if demand for the iMac were on average 7,000 units per day. According to Apple, it is only shipping 5,000 units per day, although Apple says it will be shipping at a higher rate soon. Nonetheless the point is, if this supply is due to a shortage of LCDs for their 15" iMac, and if LCD's are available in sufficient quantity for the 17" iMac, and if the price point (subject to Apple profit margin goal and LCD cost) for such an iMac is still attractive to consumers, then Apple should ship the 17" iMac if it can. Mind you, this is awfully simplistic given all of the unknowns about what is really going on. Bottom line, ship while the market is hot for the iMac or risk losing momentum.

As for the overlap with the professional line that some have cautioned, I don't see that as a problem. The consumer line is meant to look more 'cool', be a closed simplified system, and not feature the highest clocked CPU available. The 17" model would just overlap the price distribution. But there would be no conceptual confusion for consumers, which would be a major issue.

So, if the numbers were to add up for Apple shipping a 17" iMac, I would do it while the iMac is hot. In fact, a 17" iMac announcement would help reinvigorate the iMac promo machine, which has suffered due to the LCD shortage (Apple has probably held back from heavier promotion activity due to supply problems.)

As for price point, the LCD cost may render the 17" iMac unattractive to it target market. However, a lot of manufacturers are ramping up LCD production. Apple is a significant buyer of LCD's and has a fair amount of purchasing power. Consequently, I would expect Apple's LCD supplier to be willing to trim its own margins for Apple in exchange for assurances that Apple will remain one of its better customers. This sort of thing is not uncommon in business to business transactions.

Cheers,

Eirik
 

sjs

macrumors 6502
Feb 15, 2002
284
0
GA
You can be absolutely certain that there will be an iMac with a 17" LCD.

That isn't the question. The question is: When?

I would suggest that the price point is $1999...i.e., when Apple can sell a 17" iMac for under $2000 it will come out. A bottom of the line PowerMac with 17" will probably always be at least $2,500. That is enough separation.
 

porovaara

macrumors regular
Mar 7, 2002
132
0
sf
Cost of LCDs.

There is no way APPLE is paying 500-600 for a raw LCD display. At best they would be paying about $325 on the volumes they are ordering.
 

IndyGopher

macrumors 6502a
Nov 3, 2001
782
1
Indianapolis, IN
if you want a 17" iMac any time in the forseeable future, you better plan on super-gluing a VGA-based flat panel to the 15" one on there and hooking it up to the VGA-out port.
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
All right, so my post suggested a 17 inch iMac for $2499. I also said that that would be for a model with a Superdrive and a fast G4. Even if Apple simply used a CD-RW and a slow G4 the price would not be much lower than $1900.

However, I see this final product just a reformation of a PowerMac with a 17 inch LCD screen. The cost total is just a little lower than that of the Powermac G4 733MHz CD-RW version with a 17 inch monitor.

I thought Apple wants to target regular consumer products toward regular consumers by using something not as expensive, such as a 15 inch G4 iMac. (Even at 700MHz you can still achieve a sufficient amount of processing power.) Those who need the high speeds and double takes of the PowerMacs are the pro-line consumers. They spend more money to get something greater than what the iMac can achieve.

My point is that by adding a simple 2 inches to the iMac, not only would Apple be creating a much more expensive product, but there would be little difference in price separating the advanced consumer line from the low to moderate pro line.

The only way I see Apple using a 17 inch monitor is when LCD prices drop and demands lessen. Then Apple will use the 17 inch in their iMac and Apple will most likely develop a 19 inch for the pro-line Macs.
__________________

It does not take a genius to figure it out . . . just someone who uses a Mac.
 

eirik

macrumors regular
Mar 17, 2002
155
0
Leesburg, VA
no unit no earnings

My advocacy of a 17" iMac has nothing to do with market/product positioning insofar as I wouldn't want to sabotage Apple's currently clear market message with pro and consumer lines. The January launch of the iMac was a great marketing success that supply problems are squandering.

If demand for iMac's is 7,000 units per day, supply is only 5,000 units per day, and Apple could get 17" LCD's (and other needed components/integration) then Apple would simply increase its earnings, market share, and maintain/revitalize iMac product momentum.

Put another way, if adding a 17" iMac in lieu of a plentify supply of 15" LCD's would enable Apple to sell significantly more units, then it should do so. So, if Apple could crank out 1,500 units per day of 17" iMac's, then Apple would realize 1,500/day times whatever unit margin to increase Apple's earnings, market share, and market momentum. Its all about earnings. In other words, the earnings for an iMac that is not sold is zero; it can even be negative when you factor in distributed and market opportunity costs.

I'm fairly confident that a 17" unit could be rapidly developed for full-production. Now, does someone know of 17" LCD component availability? How about the challenges of rapidly integrating 17" LCD's into the current iMac form factor (modified of course)?

One last thought, market momentum is a critical aspect to success. Momentum: success breeds still more success. The probability of a consumer buying an iMac increases when there are more iMac's being purchased by consumers in general. There was contagious excitement in February and even early March about the iMac. Apple's 15" LCD shortage has definitely been lowering the momentum.