The iMac Needs to Lose Its Head

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. kettle macrumors 65816


    May 12, 2002
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)
    bad sums.

    That's the problem... the 20'' screen will out last the machine. It really is a hard thing to rationalise even when the iMac is a cheap way of buying a 20'' LCD. The need to seel a fifty £$ stand that will re purpose the monitor to stand alone usage. Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen.:)
  3. zellin macrumors regular

    Nov 23, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    This guy needs to study his history.
    Look what happened with the cube!
  4. Sir_Giggles macrumors 6502a


    Dec 18, 2003
    It's time to introduce an iMac Cube, with the option of hooking up a monitor to the top, or free-standing. And Apple needs to allow for internal upgrade, aka extra HD slot, PCI card, and 4 RAM slots. And it's gotta be way cheaper than the current iMac line.

    THe problem with the G4 Cube was that it wasn't upgradeable, targetted the market for the PowerMac G4, and was pricey. Those were the three reasons it failed. Apple needs to learn from that and make a Cube that is a bit more expandable, cheap, and replaces the current iMac line.
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    what killed cube was G4, what is killing imac is G4 and low end video. Its that simple. people arent going to throw big bucks at a 2 year old cpu that was slow when it was introduced. we have said all of this a million times and the author is right about the monitor. give it some real horsepower ill buy it just as it is. enough of G4 & fx5200.
  6. the future macrumors 6502a

    Jul 17, 2002
    IMO the article makes sense in every way. When will Apple listen and finally release a cheaper headless unit?
  7. Photorun macrumors 65816


    Sep 1, 2003
    The iMac is just too expensive for what it is. I mean, it's typical Apple, overinflated priced outdated technology and all (only applies to some of their products, I don't think this of the G5) but for what you get for what it does it's just too damn expensive to most consumers. I don't want to hear "it's the BMW blah blah..." BS, it's not, it's more like one of those craptacular GM overpriced luxury cars that have no resale value. The only people who buy them are Mac users who got the extra money and don't care about no upgradeability and the fact it's kinda old technology with a great screen, certainly it's not an overwhelming switching machine. Dull and Chumpaq both have bundle deals with 17 inch LCDs that come in WAYYYY under a grand with DVD burners and stuff. Yeah, they suck, but they're peecees, they're supposed to suck, the point is, by price point you look at the iMac, which is literally twice as much as anything out there in the Windblows side of things yet on a technical level sooo last year and go "huh?"

    I understand the R&D going into those is steep and quality etc. etc. but they're an impractical niche now showing the signs of what they are, overpriced, technologically outdate, and a great product who's niche just isn't viable. Either find a way to sell them for around the $1,000 mark or kill the product line with something better or drop some actual this year (or next year) technology into them and make them screaming viable machines (at a reasonable cost) or just kill the product line outright.
  8. wordmunger macrumors 603


    Sep 3, 2003
    North Carolina
    How about a luggable iMac?

    I think the allure of a "headless" computer is overrated. Most consumers buy computers with monitors bundled anyway.

    What if apple took the iMac concept in a completely new direction? Maybe a 10-pound semi-portable unit with an 18-or 19-inch screen. Something that really integrated well with home stereo equipment--maybe it fits into a dock on your stereo rack, and could stream music to your stereo via Airport (possibly even video? Is this possible with Airport extreme?). At ten pounds, it wouldn't be too heavy to move around the house, use at the kitchen table, etc. I think a lot of heads would turn if there was an Apple-designed unit like that.
  9. copperpipe macrumors regular

    Jul 9, 2002
    He hit it on the head....

    The iMac lost it's "iMac" appeal when they unvieled it in the first place. The original iMac was a computer "for the masses". Kinda like the VW Bug. It sold like crazy. Why? WHY?? Because of the value, that's why. And because it was cute, and stylish, especially FOR THE VALUE. What did Apple do? It replaced it with a computer that was NOT mass consumer oriented - it was Yuppy oriented. Then when they realized their mistake they quickly tried to cover it up with the eMac. But the eMac was the original iMac ugly cousin. The eMac is no where NEAR as lovable as the original iMac. So what does Apple need to do? Fix the big mistake they made. They need another mass market consumer oriented LOVABLE machine. Enter a headless Mac...(if they can do it right)
  10. miloblithe macrumors 68020


    Nov 14, 2003
    Washington, DC
    Oddly, the current iMac and old Cube have the same problem: they are too expensive to be a consumer machine and are not expandale (or powerful) enough to be a high-end machine.

    Unfortunately, Apple's product line makes more sense with two rather than three basic options on the desktop and portable sides. The middle desktop still can't quite figure out if it's for consumers or "professionals."
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    Apple just screwed up going from millions a year of cool colorful and performance to any color as long as its white and no advancement G4. at least with the original you had a clock equal to powermacs minus altivec. now they are so far behind cpu wise its a joke. the joke was made worse when they threw on the bigger screens with no performance increase. G4's at 1.0 and 1.25 are sorry when you can have 2.6 P4s in $700.00 PCs. Fx5200 is the bottom card and is a joke in those Powermacs and Imac. At least in Powermac you can upgrade.

    Apple is trying like mad in wrapping stale old hardware in fancy clothes and then charging a arm and leg.

    All in ones are not bad but they have to come with current technology if the monitor is going to be forced on you.
    Bring back color (like the mini ipod) Bring back performance(G5)and give it a decent video card(9600/9800) and you will sell millions again like the original. How long will it take Steve Jobs/Jonathon Ives to get this? thats the question.
  12. mrsebastian macrumors 6502a


    Nov 26, 2002
    sunny san diego
    i don't know about going headless, but i think the form factor is tired. i thought it was pretty ugly to start with (an upside-down salad bowl), but before the flame throwers come out, let me continue.

    i think apple has two problems that make the imac so darn expensive and less desirable (hence less sales). number one, apple displays are gorgeous with great brightness and resolution. people always talk about cheaper displays from other competitors, but have you seen them side-by-side and seen how much better apple is. that's why the sticker price is so high. second, the g4 :( it's such a slow piece of [bleep]. the faster apple can get g5s into all their products the better off they'll be. which brings us full circle...

    the fact that i can get a g5 tower and 17" display new for $2500 compared to a much slower 20" imac for $2200. for sake of argument, if i get a used 20" display to go with the g5, they're about the same price. i like the imac, but until they can offer me a g5 imac with the 20" display and for around $2000, there is simply no way in hell i'd ever consider one.

    just give me my g5 pb17!
  13. slipper macrumors 68000


    Nov 19, 2003
    really? is that why the iBook G4 and Imac G4 were the top sellers for the longest time?
  14. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    the G4 is ok for laptops, but when you start doing comparisons with anything in the wintel desk top world it is way behind. and when did Imac LCD ever come close to selling like my original imac? it never did. those Lcd's imacs sold and are selling in the thousands the imac crt sold in the millions. even now the last qtr was i think 220,000 Imacs. this number Included all Emacs. so combined Emac/Imac sales have never gotton what those crt imacs did.
    Please dont get me started on G4,its crippled FSB,its low clock,and its maker doing nothing with it is killing apples desk top line. A 1.25 G4 on its finest day may match a 2.0 P4 with the right software. on any other software its behind and apple is chargeing how much for this G4?
    Copperpipe is 100% correct.
    G4 stagnation killed the cube,G4 was killing the Protowers,and G4 is killing Imac#2. I bet Motorola is still laughing at Apple.
  15. winmacguy macrumors 68020


    Nov 8, 2003
    New Zealand
    I agree with the article as a whole. The iMac has design and style going for it but it has been well and truly surpassed by equivalent models PCs in terms of speed and price which tends to be what most customers are after. The most speed for the smallest price. It is definitely due for a CPU overhall and upgradeability and a revised price.
  16. CmdrLaForge macrumors 68040


    Feb 26, 2003
    around the world
    The cube was overpriced !

    A new iCube with 2GHz G5 at a reasonable price (e.g. $999) would be really great.
  17. 1macker1 macrumors 65816


    Oct 9, 2003
    A Higher Level
    The introduction of the G5 is what killed the iMac. It's going to happend to the Powerbooks soon is they dont get the G5 upgrade soon.
  18. Opteron macrumors 6502

    Feb 10, 2004
    South Australia
    Why can't apple sell me 2 processors and a motherboard??
  19. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a


    Apr 26, 2003
    Wakayama, Japan
    The problem with this article is it ignores the fact that the iMac has lost some of its market due to the release of the eMac. The iMac is no longer the bottom of the line machine, its the middle of the line machine. Everyone who complains about how the iMac needs to be this or that should realize what it is.

    If you want a machine that allows you to use an external monitor and has expandability get a low end Power Mac. Yes it is more expensive, but thats because it has more components, more memory, and faster processor and graphics.

    Basically the arguments I see here are people who want powermac features at iMac prices. Not a problem with the iMac itself, just a problem with reality. Everything you talk about wanting in a non-iMac is going to make it more expensive. Adding expansion ports, redesigning the case, upping the graphics card. You can't just pop all those parts into a box unless all you want is a PC. A Macintosh is more than just the sum of its parts.

    I suppose you could remove the monitor, but its possible that including it actually keeps the cost down. Not overall, but it helps keep the monitor cost less.
  20. Fender2112 macrumors 65816


    Aug 11, 2002
    Charlotte, NC
    This is what I said way back (about a year ago) when the G5 was first confirmed. When the G5 was introduced Apple had and still has to be quick to put it in all the products. Now that the G5's are out and close to a second revision, it's time to move it to the other product lines. As other's have stated, the G4 is old technology and folks are not going to pay twice the price for something that is half the performance.

    If Apple wants to increase iMac sales, stick a G5 in there. It doesn't have to be the same form factor and it's donesn't have to be expandable.

    A headless iMac would be flop - think Cube. It's not expandable and you still have to buy a monitor. I think a lower price on the low end PowerMac could fill this niche. What folks want is sub $1000 box they expand as they need. If Apple can sale twice as many units at half the margin they'd still make the same profit.

    I love the iMac form factor but it's just too expensive for the performance you get. Back in September I was in need of a new computer. I looked at the iMac and eMac. For the budget I had, I could not justify the purchase of the iMac. I chose brains over beauty and went with th eMac.

    I'm babbling now so I'll stop.
  21. SeaFox macrumors 68020


    Jul 22, 2003
    Somewhere Else
    You need to read the article again. People are moving away from all-in-ones now. When the Cube was released people were more into integraded designs like the iMac, that and the price is what killed the cube.

    Now that the market has changed, if a new Cube (with a price point that actually fits into Apple's product line) were released it would sell.

    It has been stated time and time again the Cube was a computer ahead of it's time. Well, time marches on, and look at the popularity of cube size PC's now.
  22. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    As I have said before...

    If your gonna buy the 20 inch iMac what the hell are you gonna do when the iMac when the CPU becomes useless.

    A Display.

    That you can remove, so your not wasting a TON of money after the CPU is useless.

  23. hob macrumors 68020


    Oct 4, 2003
    London, UK
    When he said that i thought... "Hey! That's me! I want that!!" I really really would like to be able to pay around £600 ($1200? - yeah i know, but that's how much we EXPECT to pay here!) for a little weeny apple box that would be really quite future-compatable that I could have on my desk and plug in my old PC monitor - this thing would really be targeted at switchers... It would essentially be an empty box with loadsa room for new ram or a new HDD etc...

    Yes, I can see why I would be told to be a Power PC, but i think an 'iCube' (as i have chosen to call it :D) would be SO much better...!

    And yes, I agree - the G5 has really killed off sales, who wants a G4? Just like when i STUPIDLY bought my G3 iBook before realising the G4 was about to come out :'(


Share This Page