Re: article updated
what was updated? Besides the word "update" at the bottom? Please shed light.
what was updated? Besides the word "update" at the bottom? Please shed light.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Upcoming iMac Features/Pricing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by SoonToGetAMac
yeah CDs seem to do that to me...when will they learn? I've tried lecturing them
i thought of designing a bootcamp inside my Tibook that punishes them as i use them. i wish i could fit them all inside there.
of course, CDs don't bother me. i rip them and forget them. i am only concerned about DVDs. if i had an iMac, i think i would put them under it.
Re: Upcoming iMac Features/Pricing
I don't think Apple's probably going to go for it, but if you made the 17" with a Pivot screen, then you would clearly be adding something very different.
-hh
I don't think Apple's probably going to go for it, but if you made the 17" with a Pivot screen, then you would clearly be adding something very different.
-hh
Imagine if Apple released new iMacs with detachable arms so that they can sell the base and screens separately from each other. This way you can choose your base, and then add whatever screen size you want to it (but you must choose a screen, of course). That would be very neato!
Quite unlikely...
Nah, I think a 19" or 20" screen would look way too large especially when compared to the iMac's body. Even the 20" monitor is becoming difficult to tell whether or not it is the 20" or the 23"....they both look pretty good sized. But with the 23" having come so far down in price, I'm problably going to get myself one once I get a decent job...however, considering this economy, that might take awhile! But hopefully not, we'll see.
Nah, I think a 19" or 20" screen would look way too large especially when compared to the iMac's body. Even the 20" monitor is becoming difficult to tell whether or not it is the 20" or the 23"....they both look pretty good sized. But with the 23" having come so far down in price, I'm problably going to get myself one once I get a decent job...however, considering this economy, that might take awhile! But hopefully not, we'll see.
rerelease the cube?
What if instead of a headless iMac, they just rereleases the cube? Didn't Jobs say something about it not really being dead? People thought when the iMac came out, that's what he was talking about, but they could put out a cube now with innards similar to an iMac, but without the screen and sell it for $600-$800. That would be sweet.
And yes, consumers will pay $1200 for a 20" screen because they paid $3500 for a 23" screen a month ago (well, some of them did anyway (suckers)).
Yeah, it probably won't happen, but....
What if instead of a headless iMac, they just rereleases the cube? Didn't Jobs say something about it not really being dead? People thought when the iMac came out, that's what he was talking about, but they could put out a cube now with innards similar to an iMac, but without the screen and sell it for $600-$800. That would be sweet.
And yes, consumers will pay $1200 for a 20" screen because they paid $3500 for a 23" screen a month ago (well, some of them did anyway (suckers)).
Yeah, it probably won't happen, but....
DDR vs. SDRAM
First off, welcome to the family.
Essentially, DDR RAM is supposed to be a faster form of RAM (when compared to SDRAM). And with the improvement in technology comes an extra price. DDR RAM tends to be more expensive than SDRAM.
But if you get yourself a newer iMac (whenever those come out), I recommend that you don't buy extra RAM from Apple since their prices are pretty expensive when it comes to RAM. Go to ramseeker.com to find much better prices on RAM. I recently bought a 512 MB SDRAM chip for $44.
First off, welcome to the family.
Essentially, DDR RAM is supposed to be a faster form of RAM (when compared to SDRAM). And with the improvement in technology comes an extra price. DDR RAM tends to be more expensive than SDRAM.
But if you get yourself a newer iMac (whenever those come out), I recommend that you don't buy extra RAM from Apple since their prices are pretty expensive when it comes to RAM. Go to ramseeker.com to find much better prices on RAM. I recently bought a 512 MB SDRAM chip for $44.
Re: Re: Quite unlikely...
You, too, huh? I'm just hoping I can be extra charasmatic and convince the lottery people that just because I didn't get 5 or 6 of the numbers, that I should still get the $200 million jackpot (if no one else wins it, that is).
You, too, huh? I'm just hoping I can be extra charasmatic and convince the lottery people that just because I didn't get 5 or 6 of the numbers, that I should still get the $200 million jackpot (if no one else wins it, that is).
Re: Re: Quite unlikely...
Maybe you should be checking your March 2002 Powerball tickets again. There's a $77million jackpot that's been sitting unclaimed for almost a year now. Most of the state governments would kill for an extra $77mil right now. Maybe one of them did and that's why the prize hasn't been claimed
Back on topic I think the rumor mill has the new iMac pretty well figured out. I expect to see modest improvements to the configurations and pricing of all iMac and eMac models. FW800 might not make an appearance yet and I don't think Steve or Jonathan Ive would ever put a port on the front of the iMac.
On that note I wonder how often the rest of you unplug your scanner, printer and keyboard. Isn't it much more practical to have all those cords plugged in to the back where they can easily run off the back of the desk, down to the keyboard drawer and, unseen, over to the peripherals? If you have more devices than that you probably already have a hub. Just get an extra cable and leave it plugged into the hub all the time. When you want to plug in your digital camera or PDA or whatever, just grab the end of the cable.
Maybe you should be checking your March 2002 Powerball tickets again. There's a $77million jackpot that's been sitting unclaimed for almost a year now. Most of the state governments would kill for an extra $77mil right now. Maybe one of them did and that's why the prize hasn't been claimed
Back on topic I think the rumor mill has the new iMac pretty well figured out. I expect to see modest improvements to the configurations and pricing of all iMac and eMac models. FW800 might not make an appearance yet and I don't think Steve or Jonathan Ive would ever put a port on the front of the iMac.
On that note I wonder how often the rest of you unplug your scanner, printer and keyboard. Isn't it much more practical to have all those cords plugged in to the back where they can easily run off the back of the desk, down to the keyboard drawer and, unseen, over to the peripherals? If you have more devices than that you probably already have a hub. Just get an extra cable and leave it plugged into the hub all the time. When you want to plug in your digital camera or PDA or whatever, just grab the end of the cable.
Re: Re: Re: Quite unlikely...
I think the KB hub idea is more for us users who have a tower and put in under our desks, and use things like digital cameras and DV and, tote around hard drives from home to work. Just a convienience thing really.
Originally posted by Bregalad
Maybe you should be checking your March 2002 Powerball tickets again. There's a $77million jackpot that's been sitting unclaimed for almost a year now. Most of the state governments would kill for an extra $77mil right now. Maybe one of them did and that's why the prize hasn't been claimed
Back on topic I think the rumor mill has the new iMac pretty well figured out. I expect to see modest improvements to the configurations and pricing of all iMac and eMac models. FW800 might not make an appearance yet and I don't think Steve or Jonathan Ive would ever put a port on the front of the iMac.
On that note I wonder how often the rest of you unplug your scanner, printer and keyboard. Isn't it much more practical to have all those cords plugged in to the back where they can easily run off the back of the desk, down to the keyboard drawer and, unseen, over to the peripherals? If you have more devices than that you probably already have a hub. Just get an extra cable and leave it plugged into the hub all the time. When you want to plug in your digital camera or PDA or whatever, just grab the end of the cable.
I think the KB hub idea is more for us users who have a tower and put in under our desks, and use things like digital cameras and DV and, tote around hard drives from home to work. Just a convienience thing really.
For all the people who have said that a 20" iMac won't happen because the screen is too big in comparison to the base of the iMac are correct. When you look at the iMac, you think its beautiful partly due to the ratio of the dimemsions of the system, and the ratio of the size of the base with the rest of the system. Ever heard of the golden ratio? An iMac with a 20" monitor will not be perceived as beautiful, and so it will not be made. Have you ever seen a girl with a perfect body, beautiful face, but a head the size of a small planet? No, and if you did, you wouldn't think she's pretty even though her individual features are "perfect". Same applies here.
Also, because of the way the monitor can be adjusted via the arms, a 20" screen would shift the center of balance too much for it to stand up. This may not happen at all arm angles, but there would definitely be an angle at which the entire iMac topples over. The only solution is either a bigger base, a heavier base, or a bit or both.
Thirdly, if Apple wanted to keep the cost of iMacs below $1999 like many people have stated, and the top end iMac was upgraded to 1Ghz and DDR RAM, this would completely cannabalize the sale of the 1Ghz PowerMac because the 1Ghz iMac would ultimately be a 1Ghz PowerMac with an lcd display included, correct? A 1Ghz Powermac WITH a 17" display would cost $2200, while the equally well equipped iMac would cost $1999. Also, a 17" display bought for a 1Ghz Powermac wouldn't be widescreen, making this configuration more expensive and worse than the iMac.
Now, if I'm wrong and they upgrade the lcd size to 20" and the price to $2300 or $2400, for example, then this would also cannabalize the sales of any 1Ghz Powermac with a 20" display, which would cost $2800. I'm one of those people who think that the 1Ghz PowerMac is a bad idea, and an iMac upgraded to 1Ghz would step on the toes of the 1Ghz Powermac too much. In fact, a 17" iMac would be a better deal than a 1Ghz Powermac + 17"; and a 20" iMac would be a better deal than a 1Ghz PowerMac + 20" display. Why even release a single processor 1Ghz Powermac if Apple knew they were going to release a better equipped iMac for cheaper?
I think any upgrade to the iMac will be to 900Ghz or 933Ghz, while the lower end iMacs are bumped to 800Ghz. Also, FW800, APE, and DDR RAM will be added, and maybe Bluetooth as well. However, they can't make an iMac a much better deal than the PowerMac + display. The only remedy to this 1Ghz PowerMac versus 1Ghz iMac problem, in terms of the value/money, is to continue selling the iMac with SDRAM. That way, at least people will think that the PowerMac + Display is better than the iMac in some way.
Also, because of the way the monitor can be adjusted via the arms, a 20" screen would shift the center of balance too much for it to stand up. This may not happen at all arm angles, but there would definitely be an angle at which the entire iMac topples over. The only solution is either a bigger base, a heavier base, or a bit or both.
Thirdly, if Apple wanted to keep the cost of iMacs below $1999 like many people have stated, and the top end iMac was upgraded to 1Ghz and DDR RAM, this would completely cannabalize the sale of the 1Ghz PowerMac because the 1Ghz iMac would ultimately be a 1Ghz PowerMac with an lcd display included, correct? A 1Ghz Powermac WITH a 17" display would cost $2200, while the equally well equipped iMac would cost $1999. Also, a 17" display bought for a 1Ghz Powermac wouldn't be widescreen, making this configuration more expensive and worse than the iMac.
Now, if I'm wrong and they upgrade the lcd size to 20" and the price to $2300 or $2400, for example, then this would also cannabalize the sales of any 1Ghz Powermac with a 20" display, which would cost $2800. I'm one of those people who think that the 1Ghz PowerMac is a bad idea, and an iMac upgraded to 1Ghz would step on the toes of the 1Ghz Powermac too much. In fact, a 17" iMac would be a better deal than a 1Ghz Powermac + 17"; and a 20" iMac would be a better deal than a 1Ghz PowerMac + 20" display. Why even release a single processor 1Ghz Powermac if Apple knew they were going to release a better equipped iMac for cheaper?
I think any upgrade to the iMac will be to 900Ghz or 933Ghz, while the lower end iMacs are bumped to 800Ghz. Also, FW800, APE, and DDR RAM will be added, and maybe Bluetooth as well. However, they can't make an iMac a much better deal than the PowerMac + display. The only remedy to this 1Ghz PowerMac versus 1Ghz iMac problem, in terms of the value/money, is to continue selling the iMac with SDRAM. That way, at least people will think that the PowerMac + Display is better than the iMac in some way.
Re: Cube was too expensive...
The problem with that idea, is that Apple wouldn't be guaranteed any profit on selling you a display. Sure, the price you pay for the iMac display is a pretty good price, but it is still guaranteed income for Apple. If they were to sell "headless" iMacs, they would be cutting part of the profit margin out of what is already probably their lowest margin product.
The fact is, as far as Apple is concerned, the iMac is not supposed to be upgradeable (other than RAM). If you want to buy their cheaper stuff, be prepared to buy the whole deal, all over again, when you want to move up. That's the whole idead behind the all-in-one enclosure.
Mind you, I'm not complaining -- just stating the facts. If you want a Mac with a screen you can upgrade (along with everything else), buy a Powermac. You can get one for $1499. Do you think Apple is going to sell almost the same hardware, in a smaller box, for $799, without making sure they can get a built-in sale on the LCD?! Ya', sure!
The problem with that idea, is that Apple wouldn't be guaranteed any profit on selling you a display. Sure, the price you pay for the iMac display is a pretty good price, but it is still guaranteed income for Apple. If they were to sell "headless" iMacs, they would be cutting part of the profit margin out of what is already probably their lowest margin product.
The fact is, as far as Apple is concerned, the iMac is not supposed to be upgradeable (other than RAM). If you want to buy their cheaper stuff, be prepared to buy the whole deal, all over again, when you want to move up. That's the whole idead behind the all-in-one enclosure.
Mind you, I'm not complaining -- just stating the facts. If you want a Mac with a screen you can upgrade (along with everything else), buy a Powermac. You can get one for $1499. Do you think Apple is going to sell almost the same hardware, in a smaller box, for $799, without making sure they can get a built-in sale on the LCD?! Ya', sure!
I think in Cubes...
I didn't think about that! A new Cube... Maybe not now, but Steve did say (on CNBC) that he had some surprises up his sleeve Apple's desktops. Maybe a PowerPC 970 Cube?
I agree with the mathamatics, and cearly a 20" iMac would stack up at $2400. However, I do think that the engineering could be overcome, it would not topple over but the spring would have to be set at a higher tension to keep the balance. I also agree that it would affect the sales of the 1ghz PM, but quite honestly I don't think they are going to sell many of those anyway!
Apple should offer a 20" iMac, Apple makes money on turnover and a lot of people who want iMacs would buy the larger model who just don't want a PM, I am one of them. If they don't offer a 20" I will just have to buy the 17" and Apple won't get my $600, I am not going to buy a PM and I am sure I am not alone with this attitude.
I think the 17" laptop is a far wackier idea than a 20" iMac. Nothing would persuade me to carry around that lump and IT does not look right. The 15" is just about perfect, 15.4" may just be better. So given that Apple has released a 17" lap top I would not rule out a 20" iMac at all, but it might not happen at this upgrade.
Re: ACK! Would canabilaize PM sales!
Why not? I mean, the PowerMac is a completely different beast, and I think lots of folks would value the difference between a PowerMac and an iMac at around that $600. As much as I like the iMac design, I'd still buy the PM model (although I'm looking further up the line for my next purchase ...)
I really don't think Apple designs its lines starting with the dictum that the "least" Pro machine should be more powerful than the "best" iMac. I suspect there is an after-the-fact "reality check" done, but I don't see product-line non-overlap as the primary guiding principle in what they put out.
Granted, Apple's margins on the various lines are likely different, but if Apple were to put a 20" monitor on an iMac at $2400 and thought that that would eat into PM sales they would:
1) Try lowering their margin on the low-end PM or increase margin on the high-end iMac to make the difference less obvious
-or-
2) Drop the inefficient model altogether (which might be the low PM or the high iMac).
And, yes, I suspect that the iMac line high-end (aside from customizations) will remain below $2k for marketing purposes.
Why not? I mean, the PowerMac is a completely different beast, and I think lots of folks would value the difference between a PowerMac and an iMac at around that $600. As much as I like the iMac design, I'd still buy the PM model (although I'm looking further up the line for my next purchase ...)
I really don't think Apple designs its lines starting with the dictum that the "least" Pro machine should be more powerful than the "best" iMac. I suspect there is an after-the-fact "reality check" done, but I don't see product-line non-overlap as the primary guiding principle in what they put out.
Granted, Apple's margins on the various lines are likely different, but if Apple were to put a 20" monitor on an iMac at $2400 and thought that that would eat into PM sales they would:
1) Try lowering their margin on the low-end PM or increase margin on the high-end iMac to make the difference less obvious
-or-
2) Drop the inefficient model altogether (which might be the low PM or the high iMac).
And, yes, I suspect that the iMac line high-end (aside from customizations) will remain below $2k for marketing purposes.
I think we'll see Powermac 970s this fall, but Apple might want more than one machine with the 970, something that would appeal to lower-budget buyers who don't want to settle for a G4 iMac.
A 970 Cube would be perfect there. A $1000 machine with choices for one of three (or four) different displays. Apple could even toss in a discount on the LCD for Cube buyers.
I would like to see a new cube, though!