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

[jayscheuerle]

For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

Apple's product-line hole is in its lower end, not in the upper end.

 

[jncrow]

Headless lower end

Very true need a lower end headless like stated earlier to encourage some of those fence sitting pc users to come over. Would be cheaper for them to be able to use there existing monitor. Could package it with basic low end keyboard and mouse and give option to upgrade.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

Apple's product-line hole is in its lower end, not in the upper end.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

Apple's product-line hole is in its lower end, not in the upper end.

The iMac is going to G5, and so should a cube. The G5 is the upper end now, but like the G3, it will become the standard across the entire product line.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The iMac is going to G5, and so should a cube. The G5 is the upper end now, but like the G3, it will become the standard across the entire product line.

A high-end cube shouldn't be made (again).

Won't sell (didn't sell). Bad business (but nice press the first time. Press isn't so generous on the same mistakes made twice).

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
A high-end cube shouldn't be made (again).

Won't sell (didn't sell). Bad business (but nice press the first time. Press isn't so generous on the same mistakes made twice).

A G5 cube would not necessarily be a high-end computer. The G5 is a high end processor now, but it does not necessarily have to be so. Like the G3, it should spread across the entire product line.

 

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

I think the main advantage of the cube design is flexibility. The compact size would be useful for many people. You could put it on the corner of a small desk or even on a bookshelf. You have the advantage of a seperate display so this also gives you more flexibility in placement of the display as well as choice of display size.
You could even attach it to a standard TV (trading resolution for size and convenience) and use a wireless mouse and keyboard.

The unit also would be far more portable than any other consumer or pro desktop. This means you can have more power than a Powerbook with a larger display at the cost of a bit of bulk and weight and a constant power supply. That's why I said it would be great for LAN parties.

A fan that blows hot air up out of the top of the case would be very efficient. This would likely be adequate cooling when combined with a heat sink for a 90nm G5 without excessive noise. This also increases the number of possible locations you can put the unit. You could place the mac flush inside a countertop or desk. You could even mount it sideways inside a wall. How about a temporary or permanent mounting in your car for family road trips?

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
How about a temporary or permanent mounting in your car for family road trips?

That reminds me. We need a power adapter that you can plug into a cigarette lighter.

 

[scat999999]

The corporate world won't embrace the G5 until MS makes Virtual PC for it.

Originally posted by rastalin94
As far as I know Apple has never built a computer with the average business user in mind. If Apple is serious about getting into the corporate arena they need a machine that IT people can honestly recommend. This “Cube” item would be a good choice, but price is what is going to really matter. Does an average office worker using Microsoft Office, a web browser, and maybe a couple of other simple programs need a G5? It does not need to expandable because there is no reason to upgrade a computer. If the computer itself costs around $600 why pay a Tech $99/hour to upgrade the machine. Computers are throwaway in the main stream business world. If Apple is serious about getting into the business arena they need something equivalent to a Dell Dimension computer. Something designed to be used by an “average” office working, not a creative professional, which is inexpensive and easy to manage.

 

[cubist]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
A high-end cube shouldn't be made (again).

Won't sell (didn't sell). Bad business (but nice press the first time. Press isn't so generous on the same mistakes made twice).

The Cube didn't sell because it was priced too high. When the price dropped to $1295, they started selling well (that's when I bought mine) but the decision had already been made to axe it, I think.

They priced it as a shrunken tower, instead of as a headless iMac. Also, it had a G4 in it, and upgradable video. To do the Cube today, it has to be a G5; it should probably be priced around $995.

Switchers are not going to buy G4 desktops no matter how cheap you make them. They're just not performance-competitive. If the new Cube is a cheap headless G4, schools may buy them as replacement units, but I think sales will be disappointing.

 

[~Shard~]

Damn iMac Speculation...

I really want to buy an iMac and was pretty certain that a G5 iMac wouldn't be coming so soon. The G5 is still relatively new, and I thought Power users would complain if the consumer-end iMac received a G5 before the PowerBooks. If a simple speed bump was scheduled soon for the iMacs, I wouldn't care, but now with all this talk and people being so sure that a big change will be happening to the iMac, and only 2 months away, I'm not sure if I should buy the 1.25 G4 anymore!

I don't want to keep waiting and waiting of course, but 2 months seems like a short period of time to wait for such major upgrades. Of course, maybe they will just announce the new iMacs at MWSF, won't ship them for 2 more months, and then we're looking at spring anyway. I'm thinking my 1.25 G4 would still suit all my needs, but a G5 would be nice...

Or, perhaps we will see no sign of G5 iMacs at all at MWSF. I think if anything is getting a G5 upgrade first it is the xServe, followed by speed bumps for the PowerMacs. Also, with LCDs due for updating soon, I question how many updates (especially G5 related) Apple will announce all at once in January. But I guess we'll have to see...

 

[Hattig]

Considering that this is for January next year

i.e., people will start getting deliveries in February and March

I don't think that Apple will release any new G4 machines after this year.

Apple also has lots and lots of holes in its product lineup. This gives it the advantage of only having a few products to manage, which is less confusing, but I imagine sales are lost by not having specific products for some areas.

What I would like to see (and I'm trying to be perfectly reasonable here!) in January is:

PowerMac G5 speed bump, all Dual Processor. 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 based machines. Video card, etc, updates as necessary. The professional machines should all be dual processor to differentiate themselves from the new "Cube" machine ...

"Cube" G5 new product, all single processor. 1.6, 1.8. 2.0. Case in same style as PowerMac, but more compact (but not so compact as to require the use of higher cost components). 1 AGP 8x, 1 or 2 PCI, Firewire, USB2. 2 or 3 DIMM slots. Maybe similar to PC SFF systems, but with that Apple 'extra'. Product areas: Standard corporate desktop where a PowerMac G5 is too expensive. Home use where an iMac isn't suitable. Cost without display: under $1000 for the base config ($799 is a good price point).

iMac G5 revised product. Same basic form factor as current iMac. Totally integrated, not much expandability. 1.4, 1.6, 1.8. Product areas: Corporate front desk, and consumer. Low volume as this system isn't that popular. Cost: higher than Cube due to display and miniaturisation costs.

Laptops won't get updated until the middle of next year, so I won't mention them.

 

[primalman]

In respose to the above poster, I agree, except for a couple of things, and a couple of additions.

The iMac will have at least one more update as a G4, perhaps to 1.42/1.5. The iBook will remain a G4 for at least 18 months, more like 2 years. The eMac will be a G4 for that same time period.

There still is the possibility for a G4 based cheap headless Mac. I don't think the Cube G5 could be $799, maybe start at $1099 or so.

 

[Hattig]

Originally posted by primalman
There still is the possibility for a G4 based cheap headless Mac. I don't think the Cube G5 could be $799, maybe start at $1099 or so.

I read a long long time ago that IBM are charging less for the 970 than Motorola were for the 7455 G4. The 7457 might be cheaper however, and I have no idea as to the current prices ... but if this remained true, then there would be very little reason to keep on using the G4 as opposed to the G5 in a non-heat-constrained case

 

[primalman]

Originally posted by Hattig
I read a long long time ago that IBM are charging less for the 970 than Motorola were for the 7455 G4. The 7457 might be cheaper however, and I have no idea as to the current prices ... but if this remained true, then there would be very little reason to keep on using the G4 as opposed to the G5 in a non-heat-constrained case

But before Apple can charge less for the whole enchilada, they must amoritize the cost of the design of the systems, the controller [which was probably expensive to design and expensive now to make], interconnect, etc. before they can really offer it as low cost. it took the G4 more than two years before it made it into a consumer system, the iMac.

There are the real costs of the system.

2¢

 

[Awimoway]

I'm not sure Apple execs have any idea what affordable is, anway.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

could this be it?

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by primalman
it took the G4 more than two years before it made it into a consumer system, the iMac.

And it took the G3 about a year, and that was with a complete architecture change.

 

[cubist]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
could this be it?

If the optical is in the bottom, it doesn't need handles on the bottom, since the air will have to come from the side. Make the bottom flat.

I was thinking earlier today about the dichotomy at Apple between the AIO designs and the modular designs. It goes back to the Mac II. Jean-Louis Gassee was the champion of the modular Mac, and Jef Raskin the champion of the unopenable, unexpandable AIO. This dichotomy exists to this day, and there never have been crossover products: the AIOs never have slots (or at least not standard ones) and the modulars never include monitors. The G4 Cube came from the modular side - it was a repackaged Sawtooth.

The iMac is from the AIO side, however. Going from history, there will never be a headless iMac, nor will the iMac ever have a replaceable video card. If there is to be a new Cube, it will be a small PowerMac, as its predecessor was.

 

[supertex]

Why release new G4 machines?

Here's my question, while I'm an uber-newbie here, and I don't know a whole lot about microprocessor manufacture and Apple's relationship with Motorola, why would Apple, if Motorola's inability to achieve with the G4 has been Apple's ball and chain for the last few years, and IBM is doing such a great job, why in the world would Apple introduce any truly new products with a G4 inside. I would think that Apple would want to move everything to a 64-bit processor as soon as possible so that their software offerings such as Mac OS X can start taking advantage of 64-bit architecture across the board. As Apple has historically been the first to do many things, I think the first company to shepherd the average user into the wonderful world of 64-bit processing would be another great feather in Apple's cap. Cut Motorola off and know that IBM is who butters your bread now is what I say. Allegedly the PowerPC derivative of the Power5 architecture could be in production units next year, so it seems Apple would start prepping for that now with G5's in iMacs and so on, and then use next year's chip in the pro line. What they call it is really irrelevant, whether it be G6 or maybe super G5 or even, a new naming scheme that designates pro processors from consumer processors. (would be my suggestion)

Anyway, doesn't matter, point is that keeping the G4 in machines seems like it would be prolonging the agony as I doubt Motorola is even capable of producing one that could be competitive in the market beyond say, Summer of next year.

 

[Awimoway]

I think Apple is stuck with the G4 a while longer because

1. Engineering the G5 chip into smaller machines is not easy because it requires a lot of cooling.

2. They can't bring the consumer models up to G5 until the pro models are already there. So a consumer Cube or iMac is not out of the question because the PowerMac already has the G5, but the notebooks can't make the jump until the engineering is there. The iBook certainly won't go G5 until well after the PowerBook has. That could easily keep G4s in new Macs well into 2005 if not 2006.

 

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by cubist
I was thinking earlier today about the dichotomy at Apple between the AIO designs and the modular designs. It goes back to the Mac II. Jean-Louis Gassee was the champion of the modular Mac, and Jef Raskin the champion of the unopenable, unexpandable AIO.

I wouldn't call the AIO's unopenable. The 5xx series machines (LC 520, Performa 550, ect) and the updated version of this case design, the 5xxx series, could be opened in as much as a drawer could be pulled out, giving one access to the motherboard. Full openability would have been a safety hazard with the monitor tube built into the chassis.

This dichotomy exists to this day, and there never have been crossover products: the AIOs never have slots (or at least not standard ones)

While the AIO's didn't have industry standard slots, the LC PDS slot appeared on many different models over the years, and third party developers created cards for them, making them rather standard on consumer AIO models.

and the modulars never include monitors.

The PowerMac 6200 was a 5200 in a Quadra 630-style case. The 6200 was sold only in Europe, but was released in the US as the Performas 6200CD, 6205CD, 6210CD, 6214CD, 6216CD, 6218CD, 6220CD, and 6230CD, each bundled with a 15" monitor, and a different hard drive.

source: Apple-History.com

The G4 Cube came from the modular side - it was a repackaged Sawtooth.

Considering the Cube...

1) Used different sized graphics cards, on a
2) complete different motherboard that
3) had a power supply separate from the case which had
4) no similarities to the B&W G3/G4 tower case and
5) used slot loadng optical drives instead of standard tray-loaders and was
6) not really designed to be expandible, unlike the Sawtooth,

I think calling the Cube a repackaged Sawtooth is a gross oversimplification. The only similarities are that they both had G4 processers (perhaps resulting in similar performance figures) and both used AGP busses for graphics cards.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I think Apple is stuck with the G4 a while longer because

1. Engineering the G5 chip into smaller machines is not easy because it requires a lot of cooling.

2. They can't bring the consumer models up to G5 until the pro models are already there. So a consumer Cube or iMac is not out of the question because the PowerMac already has the G5, but the notebooks can't make the jump until the engineering is there. The iBook certainly won't go G5 until well after the PowerBook has. That could easily keep G4s in new Macs well into 2005 if not 2006.

But they don't have to. I can see iMac (and Cube) going G5 at MWSF, PowerBook in the summer, iBook in time for Christmas.

 

[supertex]

Originally posted by Awimoway
...but the notebooks can't make the jump until the engineering is there. The iBook certainly won't go G5 until well after the PowerBook has. That could easily keep G4s in new Macs well into 2005 if not 2006.

In product revisions maybe, but this thread is about a new product offering and/or redesign of the iMac. Just doesn't make sense to me to engineer new enclosures for an old processor. AND, if the 90nm G5 is as much cooler as they claim it is, it wouldn't be all that hard to slip it into an iBook, keep clock speeds down, cripple the performance a little via RAM and cache limitations, and voila! a consumer portable with a G5. Besides, the PowerPC derivative of the Power5 would seem to me to be another generation of processor, and thereby make the G5 the consumer chip and whatever they call the next one the pro chip, right? Then again, I have a bad habit of being wrong about such things, and if that's the case, I imagine I'll be quickly corrected, which is fine by me.

P.S. - I like Phil's Timetable, quick upgrades, but not so quick as to tick off those who are currently purchasing these machines.

 

[Awimoway]

To reply to both Phil and Supertex at the same time...

I certainly hope you're right, but experience has taught me that even Apple doesn't move as fast as they would like, sometimes, on engineering issues. Don't get me wrong, they're still nearly always ahead of the rest of the pack. But not always. The very fact that we are still saddled with the G4 is evidence of that.

But we who populate the rumor sites wouldn't be here if we weren't naturally over-optimistic, would we?

 

[supertex]

But really, it seems that the problem has been with Motorola and not with Apple. Now that Apple seems to have solved their chip production woes with the help of IBM, upgrades should come faster, more like the transition to the G3 (if I'm correct) than from the G4 to the G5.