Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Redesigned iMac?

Originally posted by scat999999
Macs are more competetively priced than you think. I worked at Dell's call center earlier this year. I could probably count on one hand the number of systems I sold that went out the door for under $1000.
Click to expand...

It's not about being competitively priced, it's about what the public perceives. Marketing 101. I know they end up going out the door at more than $1000 but I would venture to guess that when that guy called up the store, he thought he was going to pay $599. When he had the conversation with his buddies the day before, he told them he was going to get a $599 computer. When people think Mac however, they think $$$$.

That said, I realize that most PC's are over $1000 and that Macs are competitively priced but until they shake the perception of being expensive and incompatible, they will have a tough time gaining market share. I think an inexpensive headless system could accomplish this. Then they could say, starting at $$699 ro something like that.

I'll give it to Apple, they can market the hell out of their products to the trend setter, hipster, early adopter market but they have failed to grasp marketing for the mass market. Wtih these iPod ads however, things appear to be changing.
 
Oh com'n everybody... its time to think outside of the box. I have it on good authoritty (i brewed some 'shroom tea and channelled Steve) he came to me in a dream and told me that the CPU will actually be an ibook that fis in a slot. So far sounds like your typical docking station. But wait their is more. The hard drive is actually an iPod. the ibook, when docked is connected to a 17" widescreen lcd with all the periphrals attached at the back. Cost: about the same. Oh and one other thing... the docking station contains an additonal GPU tjat turns off the GPU on the ibook when docked, same witht the second processor on the docking station. th docking station contains a DVD-R, a free PCI slot, and some extra ram.
Two computers in one. Now how much woul you pay?? But wait there is more. With each purchase you get 100 tracks from the ITMS!!

(I really need to lay off the caffeine before going to bed.)
 
Originally posted by greenstork
It's not about being competitively priced, it's about what the public perceives. Marketing 101. I know they end up going out the door at more than $1000 but I would venture to guess that when that guy called up the store, he thought he was going to pay $599. When he had the conversation with his buddies the day before, he told them he was going to get a $599 computer. When people think Mac however, they think $$$$.

That said, I realize that most PC's are over $1000 and that Macs are competitively priced but until they shake the perception of being expensive and incompatible, they will have a tough time gaining market share. I think an inexpensive headless system could accomplish this. Then they could say, starting at $$699 ro something like that.

I'll give it to Apple, they can market the hell out of their products to the trend setter, hipster, early adopter market but they have failed to grasp marketing for the mass market. Wtih these iPod ads however, things appear to be changing.
Click to expand...


To be fair...if that [guy] were purchasing a Mac he'd probably end up spending more too! At the online store, for example, Apple entices you with enumerable opportunities to separate you from your money by the time you begrudingly submit your credit card! ;)
 
Originally posted by the_dalex
2) Wireless displays running Remote Desktop are suitable for applications but can't do any real multimedia (video, games, etc) due to bandwidth restrictions. I use Remote Desktop for OS X at work to log into a Win2k server to run the Windows-only apps that we need, and performance is definitely better than Virtual PC, but the screen refresh is visible even over 100Mb ethernet. In fact, we use one 1.8Ghz Gateway desktop and a dozen old iMacs to do work that would have required us to buy a dozen new PCs. We dodged that bullet...
Click to expand...
So 100Mb ethernet has visible screen refresh if you have a dozen terminals. What's it like with only 3 or 4 terminals running? Also remember Apple was working on Firewire over ethernet which is an option, as is gigabit ethernet. I think you are right though - any screen you wanted to watch a movie on would have to be connected directly.
Originally posted by the_dalex
4) Maybe they are going to integrate video recording and playback, like with Microsoft's Media Center thingy? Then you can download movies via iTunes or a similar service and keep track of all of your shows, burning them to DVD for storage...
Click to expand...
That'd be nice. Somebody mentioned an Apple 30" screen too! Anyway, while downloading movies may not be ready yet - they could start right now with music-videos (and movie previews). How many competitors do that? Burn your favourite clips to DVD.
Originally posted by tex210
why can't we have a $299 unit that runs g3's ?
Click to expand...
If they are doing a complete redesign and it's not a G5 then maybe this is about IBM's new G3 with Altivec rumored for early next year.

If the iMac has a total redesign which is significantly different for Jan 04, I'm sure they'll be keeping the existing look somewhere! Love my iMac.
 
honestly... where can apple take the iMac design? The all in one was sweet, now the LCD craned above the base is amazing. But what design options for an all-in-one system are there left that haven't been done? that's my question.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
he may be smart but the G5 powermac still looks like crap and is big as a tank thank you
Click to expand...
looks like crap? find me a window machine that's as aesthetically pleasing as the G5. and i'll gladly take the size of the tower for the power inside of it...
 
It's still a tribute to Apple when our worst looking Mac is better then the best looking Wintel box!
 
The way I see it the best way for Apple to provide a great machine but at the same time not threaten its pro line is to incorperate those new G3's (G3e anybody?) From what I hear they provide proformance thats better than MotoG4s. The key to these new chips would be to sell them under a new name. G3 makes people think 1997/98 and G4 makes us all think....well lets not go there. A new name would also make the give Apple alot of marketing clout. They could benchmark it against Celerons and lowend Athlons and not have to worry about losing benchmark battles to Athlon3200+'s. Even if the new chip wasn't a speed demon it would not effect apple's proline. Back prior to G5 Apple had to dumb down iMac G4s to make powermacs look better. If Apple adobted an AMD type of naming (AMD rocks) such as using numbers to represent speed not mhz then they would not even have to worry about having similar mhz to the G5s. For me there are alot of reasons why this is a great way to go. Now don't get me wrong I love the idea of an iMac G5 but I'm more worried that Apple maintain a viable platform and price than having the latest and greatest chip. A headless machine is also a great idea but naming it an iMac would be a huge mistake. The iMac is a supposed to be an easy to setup consumer machine that is all-in-one. Anyways I'm another newb so if you dissagree w/ me I'm always open to suggestions.
 
Re: Re: Re: ok

Originally posted by BOOMBA
Click to expand...
So aside from the MAC operating system and iApps, ...rest clipped...

Here we have it folks... a true blue MAC user. We all know that if someone prints Mac in all-caps, they're not in the game.

I think ALL Apple users should realize that we are paying almost 0.5 to 2 times what it costs for a PC across the board to buy a similar MAC.

So the first time wasn't an accident.

We are paying for 2 things
1) design/looks
2) the OS and "free" apps

GREAT design, GREAT looks
GREAT OS, GREAT "free" apps

Now, I say "free" because we have to pay EVERY YEAR $129 for the new OS and FREE apps, so ....

Have to pay? Who's making you?

We get looks, and as shallow as I am, I am not paying twice as much for an iMac as a similar PC.

So, don't get me wrong. I agree that the up-front cost of more expensive, but come on, Mr. Shallow, the real costs lie in cost-of-ownership, and we all know that Macs are the same or cheaper when looking at that.

I got the G5 because for price and performance it is about as good as you can get on either side.

Oh, you bought a G5? No kidding. A G5 MAC? :D
 
He's got a good point. Why would IBM be prepping an Altivec G3? Who would the primary customer be? Um, Apple, duh. So Apple must have plans for it, but will it be iMac.3 or new life for iBooks? I will lean towards iBooks and eMacs for this new chip. When G5 goes to 2.5GHZ and 3.0GHz the iMac will be prime for the same chip (shrink from the current rev 1 G5) with lower clock, like 1.5GHz, and with that will be a cooler (temp wise) chip. That would solve the physical problems of a G5 in the smaller form factor. Didn't IBM say they were already shrinking G5 to 90nm?
 
Re: Re: Re: ok

Originally posted by BOOMBA

I think ALL Apple users should realize that we are paying almost 0.5 to 2 times what it costs for a PC across the board to buy a similar MAC.
Click to expand...

Wow .5 times the cost I ALWAYS TOLD MY MOM MACS WERE CHEAPER!.

But seriously I don't think BOOMBA is a troll. His points are valid though maybe not right on the money. The iMac is a great deal for alot of people. But at its current price it only fits a certain crowd. The eMac is a nice machine but a tad underpowered. THere is a place for an iMac that focuses more on features than asthetics and style. Maybe its shouldn't be sold under the iMac name, but the market is there nonetheless. a headless iBox would fit the perfectly. a 750GX 1.2ghz, 256mbs ram, radeon 9000, 60gig drive, firewire 400, USB2, Mac and PC monitor connectors, 3PCI slots, CD-RW with no frills for $699. And perhaps an option with only the processor and box for $399. THat way users could add ram, drives, ect. This machine could satisfy the need for netboot machine that could be customized with no HD, as well as a great way to convert PC users and take some steam out of those 500$ eMachines. I realized that the profits would be slim but I do belive that if produced in enough quantity that Apple could make a teeny profit and add millions to their consumer base who then upgrade OS, by Apple apps and hardware and get to enjoy somewthing that we are all lucky enough to be using right now.
 
Originally posted by ssurgeman
A headless machine is also a great idea but naming it an iMac would be a huge mistake. The iMac is a supposed to be an easy to setup consumer machine that is all-in-one. Anyways I'm another newb so if you dissagree w/ me I'm always open to suggestions.
Click to expand...
At first glance I agreed iMac must be all-in-one... but I don't think Apple ever defined the iMac line that way(??)
Originally posted by mxpiazza
honestly... where can apple take the iMac design? The all in one was sweet, now the LCD craned above the base is amazing. But what design options for an all-in-one system are there left that haven't been done? that's my question.
Click to expand...
Way back, they made 4 lines split by consumer/pro, and laptop/desktop. The iMac and eMac are the consumer-desktop line. The consumer line is easy to setup, and not expandable (modelled more on your home stereo or vcr than on a computer). That leaves many possibilities.
 
Re: Re: ok

Originally posted by jholzner
show me a windows pc that includes a 17" lcd and teh design of the imac that can do what a mac can do with the ilife suite for 800 buck. get real
Click to expand...

If you build it yourself, it's incredibly not-difficult. :p You won't get the design, but you'll get a faster machine with better specs.

And no, I don't intend to flame. I'm a Mac user first and foremost.
 
Originally posted by GregAussie
At first glance I agreed iMac must be all-in-one... but I don't think Apple ever defined the iMac line that way(??)
Way back, they made 4 lines split by consumer/pro, and laptop/desktop. The iMac and eMac are the consumer-desktop line. The consumer line is easy to setup, and not expandable (modelled more on your home stereo or vcr than on a computer). That leaves many possibilities.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that Apple defined the iMac that way, but we the consumers have. And by implying that a headless Mac is a good idea I did not mean to say it would be a consumer machine. More like a switcher machine. Although I realize that you are pointing out history I belive that the very reason APple hasn't made more inroads into the Pc world is the lack of expandibuility on its middle price range machines 1000-2000 (monitor price included). I think that such a machine could be left with too few slots and a processor that was inadequite to compete with the G5 so that it wouldn't be a problem for the pro-line.
 
The metal look G5 looks cheap. Which is weird when you consider that the powerbooks have a metal look and look sleek and new and that the iMacs and iBooks are plastic and look sleek and new. And yet the G5 looks tinny and cheap.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
he may be smart but the G5 powermac still looks like crap and is big as a tank thank you
Click to expand...

When I was in the Apple store a couple of weeks ago, the salesman was pitching the various machines to a woman. When he got to the PowerMac she cut him off and said 'why would I want that big ugly box?' Now, that's just her opinion, of course, but she's probably representative of what alot of people think about it. There's no doubt Ives & Co. worked very hard to dress it up, but there's only so much you can do with a big a$$ box.:(
 
Originally posted by moosecat
I have to say I have trouble imagining a change as radical as the last iMac change. I believe they have to keep using built-in LCD screens, and it seems like the current iMac is pretty much the pinnacle of design for a computer that includes such a built-in screen. Anyway, my speculation:

What they'll keep: Built-in LCD display; arm that pivots out of a CPU-inclusive base; limited expansion options.

What they'll change: Shape of base (maybe going cube); feature set (CPU; graphics card; port configuration)

What they may or may not change: Color scheme. (It's tempting to say they'll go aluminum, but Apple likes their consumer and pro lines to have distinct looks.)

As for the headless iMac, I agree that it sounds like a good idea. They won't call it an iMac though. Perhaps that could be a fourth model line ... The iMac is the continuation, in form and function, of the original Mac, and I don' t think they'll mess with its general theme of simplicity and all-inclusiveness.
Click to expand...
I love talking about the cMac! cMac, cMac all the way! cMac = Cheap Mac.
$504 with G3 1Ghz
$589 with G4 1Ghz
One PCI slot. Modifyable video. Otherwise no more expansion than the iMac. And I won't cry if you take out the PCI slot.:) No monitor. Down to roughly $500. That's the cMac.
 
Re: nintendo did it.

Originally posted by tex210
Want market share? Look at nintendo.
Click to expand...

Err, Nintendo is slowly and surely getting edged out. Even back in the days of SNES vs. Genesis, where the SNES was very clearly superior, Genesis still had more games and more consoles sold.

If anything, Nintendo (ca 1994) represents what Apple should not be doing: trusting consumers to buy the best technology for the money.

That's why they've put so much effort into making the new macs pretty.

I personally think that the new "revolution" is going to be centered around color. Apple has gone to some effort to make its product lines look "pure"...at the same time it has lost some of the appeal of the original, gum-drop iMacs.

Look at the new iPod commercials. Color is going to be very important in the 3rd generation for iMac. I suspect that patent thingy mentioned earlier will be the revolutionary part. I imagine apple will also continue to concentrate on natural aesthetic metaphors, incorporating color in organic manners.

<begin crazy rant...>
What if Apple puts the display back down on the desktop, mounts the computer to the behind, then reverse mounts an iSight, so that when the computer goes to sleep, it shows the iSights image and the screen becomes "invisible"!!
<end crazy rant...>

har har
 
to have the pro line go all sterile surgical aluminum just sucked, I was thinking of getting a g5 but it looked like hell and wouldnt fit in my desk so i upgraded that cpu and am good to go for a year or so or untill Apple makes a powerful consumer machine. anyone remember the picture /movie that was floating around of a computer with slide out hard drives and larger flat screen that just sat in front of you? so big no need to swivel or tilt it or anything. it had the Enya soundtrack to it and to me just looked to cool. They need to give the prosumer a powerful machine that isnt gigantic and has 1 2 gig g5 in it and ati 9800xt & maybe 1 pci slot. call it whatever but apple forces people to decide imac vs powermac and most of those people end up with pc's. APPLE WHY CANT YOU BUILD A UPGRADEABLE HIGH POWER G5 CUBE FOR THE MASSES????they throw all this stuff in the powermac that most consumers will never need,they strip down imac,give it a crappy fx5200 chip and wonder why lcd imac sales never matched the crt's. Who ever is in charge of what goes into model lines is out of touch with the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back