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

The Return of an Apple Cube... as an iMac?

powerbook

if apple upgrades the iMac to a g5, wouldn't they sort of be forced to upgrade the powerbook to a g5 at the same time? If they didn't, they'd be forced to justify why their consumer-grade product has a better processor in it than their pro-grade product.
i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome, and I think apple really only needs one all-in-one solution.
Anyhow, I'm waiting to upgrade my ibook until they get a 15" g5 powerbook.

much love,

Jackrabbit Slim
 
Re: powerbook

Originally posted by Jackrabbit Slim
if apple upgrades the iMac to a g5, wouldn't they sort of be forced to upgrade the powerbook to a g5 at the same time? If they didn't, they'd be forced to justify why their consumer-grade product has a better processor in it than their pro-grade product.
i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome, and I think apple really only needs one all-in-one solution.
Anyhow, I'm waiting to upgrade my ibook until they get a 15" g5 powerbook.

much love,

Jackrabbit Slim
Click to expand...

Well, look at it this way. Sometimes a particular line is held back by circumstances beyond Apple's control. Apple has admitted that they are working on a G5 Powerbook, but it's going to take some time to engineer. So just as the PowerMac was less than it should have been for a while, the Powerbook may follow suit. I don't think they'll let the weaknesses of one line hold back others. That just doesn't make sense.
 
That's why there are **e**Macs AND **i**Macs...

Originally posted by Jackrabbit Slim
... i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome...
Click to expand...

... and there's a very good reason why the eMacs are that way. Heavy, cumbersome computers tend not to "grow legs". iMacs are too easy to carry off from the computer lab while no one is looking without some sort of security cabling. Heavy is cheaper and eMacs are still less cumbersome than any type of Mac tethered to a table, so those two terms are winners as far as a lot of educational administrators are concerned.
 
Re: I think it will be a limited special edition thing

Originally posted by machinehien

I seriously doubt the new cube would be inexpensive. In order to creat a $500-600 machine apple would have to cut so many corners and economize on so many components it would really do themselves a disservice. Plus companies like Dell and HP specialize in stripped down machines for bulk sale, machines sans sound cards or graphic cards, built from the cheapest components at the moment.
Click to expand...

Cannot agree on that. I really depends on the components used. E.g. they can make an iMac and sell it for $800. If you take the monitor out - why not make a Cube with eMac Specs for $600 ?
 
Re: Better still...

Originally posted by jimh123456
To me, it seems that Apple could make a new "ultra-affordable" (say, $400) Macintosh by requiring customers to "bring more to the table" themselves (power supply, case, memory, etc.). Think about this...

Take an iBook ....

Thoughts?...
Click to expand...

Not going to happen.

If you look where Apples profits come from you will see that its mainly from selling hardware. What you are suggesting profit margins as well as absolute profit per unit sold are not high or zero.

Thats why Apple will not do that,
 
Re: Re: I think it will be a limited special edition thing

Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
Cannot agree on that. I really depends on the components used. E.g. they can make an iMac and sell it for $800. If you take the monitor out - why not make a Cube with eMac Specs for $600 ?
Click to expand...
With a SMALL amount of money Apple makes from software - for iTMS, .Mac, Panther, Quicktime Pro... if Apple can work out what they make on average from each low end (eMac) user they may decide that a low-profit entrance machine will make them money in other areas.

Other than that I think (unfortunately) they won't use cheap machines to make inroads - they'll have totally different ways. Come on... one cube, 2 users/displays (good for schools).
 
Originally posted by xDANx
i'm not convinced that "pro all-in-one" is a big hole in apple's lineup. actually, i'm not even sure it's a hole at all...more like a chasm...like the one that the marketing department would fall into should it ever try to promote something like this.
Click to expand...

I never said that the pro all-in-one was a hole. Simply that Apple doesn't make one. I entirely agree that such a product would be doomed to failure.
 
Re: Re: Better still...

Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
Not going to happen.

If you look where Apples profits come from you will see that its mainly from selling hardware. What you are suggesting profit margins as well as absolute profit per unit sold are not high or zero.

Thats why Apple will not do that,
Click to expand...

I know Apple makes most of their profits from the hardware. That's why I was suggesting a physical PCI-slot CARD (hardware) that is installed in a PC as opposed to just an Intel port of OS X (which would just be pirated - hard to make a profit like that). Without the associated hardware, the software would be useless.

So if the card costs less than $300 (theoretically/hopefully) to manufacture, they could sell the entire package (card plus "OS X for Intel" CDs) for $400. Assuming it costs very little to manufacture the OS X CDs, printed manuals, etc., that's a 25% profit margin, which is not insignificant, and certainly not "zero".
 
Re: powerbook

Originally posted by Jackrabbit Slim

i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome, and I think apple really only needs one all-in-one solution.
Anyhow, I'm waiting to upgrade my ibook until they get a 15" g5 powerbook.

much love,

Jackrabbit Slim
Click to expand...

Drop the eMac? Have you heard of the education market? The iMac in not even a consideration for k-12 schools. The eMac is perfect for schools. Period.
 
Originally posted by MrMacman

Along with the fact that
Its impossible to have 0 Fans for the G5 Processor
Click to expand...

Hogwash.

The current G5 requires sufficient cooling, that's it.

There's nothing precluding other means of cooling (metal or liquid conduction). There's nothing precluding a cooler G5, what with IBM running full-tilt at 65nm lines. There's nothing precluding running the G5 at a slower clock so it dissipates less heat.

In fact, the iMac would be a great machine to introduce the concept of variable-clock CPU's. When the CPU load is low, throttle the CPU back to 100MHz. The G5 would barely feel warm. When Photoshop is crunching through a filter, crank the clock, maybe even turn on a fan. But when it's sitting on the desk and you're not doing anything but wasting time at MacRumors, keep it quiet.

Apple's had similar technology since 1991 in their powerbooks, and Intel is doing it as of last year in their laptops, in increments, so increasing the number of increments and controlling it via the OS is a logical next step.
 
Originally posted by xDANx
i'm not convinced that "pro all-in-one" is a big hole in apple's lineup. actually, i'm not even sure it's a hole at all...more like a chasm...like the one that the marketing department would fall into should it ever try to promote something like this.
Click to expand...

Look at the nice picture he posted again, Danny boy. Look for the cubes. There they are. ;)
 
What's the problem with having a fan in the machine?
As long as its quiet, does it matter?
The iMac has a fan, I had never really heard it, but if you look close you can see it.
Out of ear, out of mind :D
 
Originally posted by Tim Flynn
What's the problem with having a fan in the machine?
...
Out of ear, out of mind :D
Click to expand...

Might have mentioned this before, but the silence of my friend's Cube is lost in the noise of her external Firewire HD and laser printer. Until peripheral manufacturers play along, maybe there's not a lot of difference between "quiet" and "silent".

Given the approach the new G5s take with their use of fans, I wonder (1) how few they could get away with in a Cube or other design that makes maximum use of conduction and "environmental" convection, and (2) since the user would probably be typing and mousing when the fan kicks in, what the dB output of the fan(s) would be compared to all the clatter you make when you type.
 
the cube strikes back

I've always wanted a Cube but it was just once again ahead of its time. Look at all the shuttle craze in the PC world now. I think timing is much better now versus then.
 
Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
Look at the nice picture he posted again, Danny boy. Look for the cubes. There they are. ;)
Click to expand...

i'm lookin', i'm lookin'...

...and i see the cube sitting in high-end (and low-end) consumer headless. so far no problem. next we come to the hole in question...you know, that blank space in the chart...pro all-in-one. i think that there's nothing there for a good reason...because it would be a very bad idea.
 
yeah we dont need a pro all in one, but there is a gigantic enormous hole between imac g4 1.25 and powermac g5. all this talk of a cheap headless mac just makes me laugh, the original cube was like $1800 bucks starting, priced between the imac g3 and g4 pro tower. i would look for a price tag between $1300-2000 which again would place the cube between the g4 imac and g5 pro tower. if the cube returns it will be as the cube special edition or something.
 
Re: Re: Re: Better still...

Originally posted by jimh123456
I know Apple makes most of their profits from the hardware. That's why I was suggesting a physical PCI-slot CARD (hardware) that is installed in a PC as opposed to just an Intel port of OS X (which would just be pirated - hard to make a profit like that). Without the associated hardware, the software would be useless.

So if the card costs less than $300 (theoretically/hopefully) to manufacture, they could sell the entire package (card plus "OS X for Intel" CDs) for $400. Assuming it costs very little to manufacture the OS X CDs, printed manuals, etc., that's a 25% profit margin, which is not insignificant, and certainly not "zero".
Click to expand...
I don't think it would work, my experience with the Orange x86 card for the MacII was pretty dismal. On the other hand, I'm wondering why you'd pick a card anyway. You could do a small external box with Firewire 800 and everything else as you describe (and sell an optional PC firewire 800 card). It'd remove cooling problems etc too. But I think either solution would not really give a great Mac experience, and as such won't happen.
 
OS X for Intel?

As said elsewhere, not gonna do it.

Jobs spoke recently (sorry, can't find any links) about how its technically feasible and maybe not even that much of an engineering task to accomplish, but as many have brought up in this thread Apple sells hardware ... the software is there to get you to buy the hardware.

That's why, as much as I complained at the time, killing off the Mac clones was a Good Thing. I used to feel the same way about MacOS X on Intel -- but after seeing just how hot Apple's hardware products have become over the last 4 years or so has convinced me on this point as well: No MacOS X for Intel is a Good Thing.

With Motorola rumbling about getting out of microprocessors, reaffirming Apple's commitment to IBM's development is critical. The Power970 is impressive enough that Micro$oft is looking at it as the basis of the next generation of the X-Box (called right now X-Box Next ... what else is Redmond going to steal from Cupertino? The character for the command key? No, wait, they've done that, too!! ... look at the logo).

IBM has come up with some incredible innovations in chip design and manufacturing that has brought the PowerPC line back to life. It also looks, from this article, that they are looking to the future of chip manufacture more than Intel, who apparently can't be bothered with non-incremental approaches to a manufacturing technology that has maybe 20 years of life left before it is no longer viable.
 
A 2.0 GHz G5 Cube with a radeon 9600 or better would be great for LAN parties. Just stick a Cinema Display under your other arm and you're good to go.
 
Originally posted by yamabushi
A 2.0 GHz G5 Cube with a radeon 9600 or better would be great for LAN parties. Just stick a Cinema Display under your other arm and you're good to go.
Click to expand...

What? Do you think the G5 towers are that big for aesthetic reasons? It's not like there's tons of room for upgrading in them (2nd optical anyone?). All that room is for controlling, carefully controlling, airflow, lots of airflow, across their toasty processors. A cube with a 2Ghz G5 would float about 8" off the ground with the fan it would need to keep it cool.

Is Apple really ready to enter the "beautiful machine, stupid idea" arena again by making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE? Not that I doubt it, they're arrogant to a fault, but even children learn from their mistakes. An overpriced art-box isn't going to cut it. Can Apple rise to the challenge of making something smart and beautiful like the iPod, but in a computer form? The cube and iMac2 were big miscalculations. 3rd time, they're out...
 
The New Imac Specs..

The imac at the January show will definitely
be a G5 at the same time the New Power Mac's
will go up to dual 2.5GHz and a single 2.7 GHz
processors. The Imac will be available in
1.6GHz, 1.8GHz 2GHz. The New imac will
look more like today's G5's with a square like
base but flat like two power books stacked
on top of each other. Same type of arm holding
the screen but a flat and wider arm. There will
be a New 20" flat screen for the highest end
model and 17" for all the lower end models.
All models will have Super Drives.

Also a special anniversary mac will look
an imac but a different color and a slightly different
shape and a 2.5 GHz G5. It will come with a
wireless keyboard and mouse. It will have a
detachable ipod built in. Pop in pop out upright
draw that pushes inside the base. And of course
all the other goodies the imac but a 17" flat display.
 
Originally posted by voicegy
Bold predictions there, kenjah...I like, I like.:)

Though you tease me with: "...special
anniversary mac will look an imac but a
different color and a slightly different
shape..."

Pray tell...more on the "shape".:)
Click to expand...

It will be square with rounded
edges. It will look like
the Powerbook and the PowerMac G5
had a baby.
 
Re: OS X for Intel?

Originally posted by finelinebob
As said elsewhere, not gonna do it.

Jobs spoke recently (sorry, can't find any links) about how its technically feasible and maybe not even that much of an engineering task to accomplish, but as many have brought up in this thread Apple sells hardware ... the software is there to get you to buy the hardware.

That's why, as much as I complained at the time, killing off the Mac clones was a Good Thing. I used to feel the same way about MacOS X on Intel -- but after seeing just how hot Apple's hardware products have become over the last 4 years or so has convinced me on this point as well: No MacOS X for Intel is a Good Thing.

With Motorola rumbling about getting out of microprocessors, reaffirming Apple's commitment to IBM's development is critical. The Power970 is impressive enough that Micro$oft is looking at it as the basis of the next generation of the X-Box (called right now X-Box Next ... what else is Redmond going to steal from Cupertino? The character for the command key? No, wait, they've done that, too!! ... look at the logo).

IBM has come up with some incredible innovations in chip design and manufacturing that has brought the PowerPC line back to life. It also looks, from this article, that they are looking to the future of chip manufacture more than Intel, who apparently can't be bothered with non-incremental approaches to a manufacturing technology that has maybe 20 years of life left before it is no longer viable.
Click to expand...

My original concept of a Mac-on-a-card (for a PC) was to address the complaints of a PC-using friend of mine. He loves Mac OS X (the little he's seen of it), but he can't justify buying a Mac: the machine that he wants (headless/low-cost) doesn't exist in Apple's product line. The PowerMac and XServe are headless, yes, but outside the price range of someone accustomed to buying PC hardware. The only Mac (the eMac) that is in his price range includes a set of redundant, ancillary hardware (display, mediocre keyboard, nearly-unusable mouse) that he doesn't need and refuses to pay for, not to mention the inability to add/replace internal components (faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, you know the tune).

So my idea was to create a Mac that appealed to cost-conscious PC-users that didn't require them to clear room on their desks for yet another monitor/keyboard/mouse. Again, the add-in card would contain a PowerPC processor, so no Intel port of OS X would be required - just some supporting software for interfacing the card with the rest of the PC hardware. Apple would, as always, make their money on the sale of this card (again, hardware) - not the OS X software. I'm not sure why some people have thought that I meant that Apple should produce a port of OS X to Intel - this is absolutely not what I am saying.

Anyway, I don't hold out much hope that Apple will really do this, but I do feel that Apple desperately needs to produce a headless Mac in the magic sub-$1000 range (preferably well below the cost of an eMac). I wouldn't even mind if it had a G3 in it, just so long as Apple provides a viable alternative to the low-cost dreck found in the PC universe.

BTW, I understand the whole "superior user experience" argument that people use to justify the expense of a Mac, but the computer industry is not the auto industry, and comparisons with BMW, say, don't hold water. If you buy a BMW, you can still drive anywhere you want - every road will allow your car to travel upon it; you can get gas at the same place as those who drive Fords and Hondas; you don't have to learn how to drive again (same steering wheel, gas/brake pedals, etc); traffic lights/signs/laws still apply to you; and so on... The only significant difference between a Honda and a BMW is cosmetic.

This is not the case in the computer world: a Mac cannot run Windows software (without additional, expensive software, and even then, slowly and incompletely at best - good luck running any decent PC game in VirtualPC). Many file formats are incompatible. The Mac OS X programming API is completely different than the Windows API, making cross-platform software development extremely difficult. If Apple continues to lose market share, software developers will stop spending their valuable time supporting it (many already have), and the Mac universe will eventually become untenable.

Apple needs to produce some kind of ultra-low-cost Mac before it's too late.
 
Originally posted by xDANx
t...pro all-in-one. i think that there's nothing there for a good reason...because it would be a very bad idea.
Click to expand...

Agreed - my point was that the cube isn't that hole in the chart, the poster had it properly placed in consumer and prosumer.

BTW, AppleInsider is carrying details on the 980 at 90 microns. I'll take a nickel from anybody who wants to bet that the iMac G5 won't have a 90nm G5 in it. ;) The 980 will be ready for a summer G6.

Word is IBM partnered in August with 2 fab producers who developed a fab that can run at 90nm, 65nm, and 45nm over time. They're installing it at Eask Fishkill.

We need a mole in there.
 
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