What would you like in the iMac G5's?

[Quagmire]

I would like to see the return of the slot load in the imacs. I am not in favor of headless imacs. I think apple will stick with the arm display design with a different designed base. I think the speeds of the G5 imacs will be the same speed today of the current Powermac G5's. I would like to see a dual imac. What would you guys and gals like to see in the imac G5?

[Mac+]

I'm not quite so sure about a dual iMac - I think the distinction of being a dual machine sits well with the Power/Pro line alone.

However, I do agree about the arm... I would be surprised if Apple ditched it b/c I think it is a key element about the design that just screams cool and thoughtfully produced. I also agree about slot loading... it just looks cooler than a tray, although I realise at least a tray can hold those mini CDs!

As for a headless Mac - I would actually like to see one, but I don't think it should take over the iMac's position in the product line-up.

[DMBand0026]

iMac will not go dual, ever. It's a consumer machine. Anyone who needs two processors to surf the internet, check their mail, and send IMs is using the wrong software ;)
Seriously though, iMacs will always be single processor. The arm thing, who knows, it may stay, it may go. But it's a great look for that machine, I like it a lot personally.
I would like to see a G5 in there, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 or a .6, .8, 2.0 single line would be great. Slot load or tray load...eh, don't matter much to me. But I think slot load is just another cool feature that will find its way back into the iMac.

[Ryan]

An iMac doesn't need a G5. A G4 is fine for what it is meant to do. Some photo retouching, iTunes, and Garageband, with some iMovie thrown in. I do all this and more on a 450Mhz G4 with reasonable speed. Consumers simply do not need a G5. Or the price that goes alone with it.

[DMBand0026]

I know a G5 isn't needed. However, we all know how the average joe computer user is, they see that there is something faster and they won't buy something slower, mostly cause they don't understand what they do need.

[Quagmire]

I know a G5 isn't needed. However, we all know how the average joe computer user is, they see that there is something faster and they won't buy something slower, mostly cause they don't understand what they do need.

I knew that I didn't need the powerbook. I was going to use the computer for email iming and surfing the web. The ibook would have done that perfectly. What made choose the powerbook is that the 14 inch 1 Ghz ibook was $100 less, the screen resolution was the same, the ibook was having its logic board problems, I didn't like the plastic fell on the ibook, the powerbooks aluminum was a cooler design, and if I wanted it I could have gotton a superdrive( Before rev c).

[Wickers]

I think the iMac G5 should be colour interchangeable. As in, you can style your iMac, in any colour you like, or pattern, or whatever. Let the user express them self. And re-express them self whenever they please, by popping off the colour plate and snapping a new one on.

Another thing would be, 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound. I mean, with a 20" wide screen I would want to watch movies and other multimedia files so I would like the option to expand my sound system past the standard "pro" speakers. Optical out would be nice.

Oh and while I'm at it...

Who is Apple trying to kid with mirror only mode for it's video out? Common man... most if not all "consumer" PCs today can do it.

[SilentEchoes]

There is a strong difference between what I would want ot see in the iMac and what would end up in the iMac.

My dream iMac:

Basically the Cube with dual 1.6GHz G5 processors.
BTO top of the line video card.
2 - 4 RAM slots.
80GB HD. with room for another.
Superdrive.

Something along those lines. The way I multitask I would never getting another single processor machine again.

Scrollin so smooth like the butter on the muffins.

[InactionMan]

I don't care whether it is headless or not I just want a iMac with a G5. I'm running a 4 year old Sage iMac and it starting to get long in the tooth.

And I know I don't need a G5 but I'll be using it for another four years so a G4 just doesn't appeal to me.

Actually a headless would be cool so long as you were able to buy a bundle that came with a monitor (like the LC series). I love the case for my old LC 630.

So there it is. I want the next iMac to be a headless G5 in the style of the LC 630. Bundled with a 17 inch LCD. For about $1500 Canadian. :)

[DMBand0026]

The way you multitask says to me, "I need a pro machine." Even if you don't use huge ram hungry apps (Photoshop, FCP/E, DVD studio Pro...ect) if you use a lot of smaller apps that are ram and processor intensive, get a pro machine. Leave the iMacs for the people that don't need a dualie.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
iMac = Consumer machine (single processor, limited expandability, middle of the road video card...)
PM = Pro (dual processors, big expandability which Apple seriously needs some work on, top of the line video card...)

Don't make that iMac into something it's not

[SonOfSylvanus]

Problem is, DMB: Where is the middle of the road? If I require more than today's iMac, but less than today's G5, what should I be asking for? Maybe a souped-up, headless iMac... hence some of the suggestions here.

I'm not too sure about the distinction between "consumer" and "pro". Many (many) "consumer" computer users want to play games on their PC/Mac. Forgetting the arguments for and against consoles etc, this means that "consumers" want to run *the most taxing software ever devised for a computer* on whatever machine that they buy.

If 80% of the time I will use my computer to do things that won't nudge a G4 over half processor power and 90% of the applications I own would work on a G3, but the most fun I can have on my computer requires the latest graphics cards, honking processors and a multi-GB RAM machine, what should I do?

[DMBand0026]

Get the new headless Mac ;)

Not the iMac, not the eMac, those I believe will continue to fill the spots they are in, one as mostly an education machine, and one as a consumer machine. Either that, or the iMac will go headless and the eMac will fill its shoes.
Heck, I don't know what's gonna happen, the middle of the road for Apple desktops is blurry right now. Only time will tell.

[SilentEchoes]

DMBand0026 This is a hypothetical thread. I was simply saying what the iMac would need for me to buy one ;)

[DMBand0026]

I know that, and I suggested an alternative since I don't think an iMac will work for you :) And a hypothetical alternative at that.

I hope it didn't come off as anything other than just a lighthearted suggestion, cause it wasn't meant to. Sorry.

[SonOfSylvanus]

DMBand0026 This is a hypothetical thread. I was simply saying what the iMac would need for me to buy one ;)

OK then. I want an iGame - a consumer Mac, optimised for games to be simultaneously announced with the surprise release of Half-Life 2 on the Mac.

It will have the iMac floating head screen - 20inch... fuckit, 23inch (yeah baby). And it isn't stiff but smoothy-glidy like the 17incher.

It will have whatever the latest graphics card is (Fire-whatty?).

It will have huge honking great processers... Huh, what? I don't care which ones, as long as they're huge and honking (yeah, honking)... err... and in a silent enclosure. So everything will be suuuuuperfast.

It will be able to do surround sound.

Nach, I can't be bothered to think of all the things I would want in an iMac to make me buy one... But, I contend (gotta love the class connotations of the English language), that hypothetical wish lists can get silly, and get silly pretty quickly.

[SonOfSylvanus]

I hope it didn't come off as anything other than just a lighthearted suggestion, cause it wasn't meant to. Sorry.
Eh, I just took it as advice d00d. Though I wasn't suggesting that I am a game-mad consumer... though I am... it was just a hypothetical... er...based on me. :p

[pscates2.0]

What would I like in an iMac G5? I'm going to go out on a huge limb here and say "have them shipping in reliable, defect-free quantity within, say, five months of their unveiling". That too much to wish for? Hmmmm?

:D

I know...that's a TALL request, considering.

;)

"Maccentral.com, Oct. 11, 2004: Apple has acknowledged the problem of some LCDs mounted upside-down on their new flagship G5 iMac, announced two months ago by CEO Steve Jobs. Also, many readers are reporting that hard drives haven't been installed in nearly 1/3 of the shipping units, and that the power cable including with the new iMac is the same on both ends, rendering said cable totally useless. A class-action suit is pending. Stay tuned as details unfold..."

:rolleyes:

[Chinney]

A new body design with a detachable arm option that allows easy conversion to headless iMac - including the option to buy it that way. I have posted before about my 'squared hockey-puck' design in .com.:)

Slot load too - I really prefer slot load.


Some greater ability to upgrade would be nice - although this might be dreaming on my part.

[DMBand0026]

"Maccentral.com, Oct. 11, 2004: Apple has acknowledged the problem of some LCDs mounted upside-down on their new flagship G5 iMac, announced two months ago by CEO Steve Jobs. Also, many readers are reporting that hard drives haven't been installed in nearly 1/3 of the shipping units, and that the power cable including with the new iMac is the same on both ends, rendering said cable totally useless. A class-action suit is pending. Stay tuned as details unfold..."

:rolleyes:

Awww crap. Now you've gone and done it. You know this is gonna happen now!
And you can bet the class action suit will include those who were shipped units of "the incorrect hue". "His white is different than my white!"

Than you'll get the crack pots filing suit #2..."his machine was shipped without a HD, I and mine had a HD! What the crap? This is an outrage, if he doesn't have one, I shouldn't have one."
They'll be mad that their machine had a HD, just to give them something to complain about. Idiots.

[Hobbes]

The G5 iMacs are going to look very different, I suspect. They'll be custom-built around the G5 the same way the PowerMac was -- and hopefully with less expensive components to better compete against $600 PCs.

[Mac+]

I hope so - I think the iMacs need to be more price competitive too!

Btw: Don't tell me about the eMac (that hunk of plastic was originally created to make inroads into the education market - you can't tell me consumers actually prefer that design over the iMac can you? I think it is selling b/c of the low price point or features/value ratio.)

[netromac]

The G5 iMacs are going to look very different, I suspect. They'll be custom-built around the G5 the same way the PowerMac was -- and hopefully with less expensive components to better compete against $600 PCs.I don't think the G5 iMac's are going to look "very different". They may be different but I think Apple is going to keep the "lamp" design concept for a while. They may redesign the base and change colour, or have some colour or aluminium elements, but the layout is going to remain the same.

While a sub $1000 G5 iMac would have sold loads and loads of units, I don't see it happen. If they were to sell it at that price they would need to use cheap low quality displays, small hard drives, 128 MB ram and cheapo graphics. This would make the advance made in processor power rendered almost useless.

Apple should instead market the iMac as a semi-professional computer or "power" computer. They could get a reasonably fast G5, decent graphics and display without costing a fortune.

Then they should re-make the eMac with a LCD screen and decent specs. Give it a "real" Macintosh look, and market it as the computer for the price AND quality conscious.

[windowsblowsass]

i think apple should make the new imac like the original, a true consumer machine, that was cheap and easy to use with all the power. you know a real "computer for the rest of us"

[Ryan]

Apple should create a headless Mac, maybe to go along with those rumored DVI displays, but with the current lineup it would be hard to do without sacrificing either G5 or iMac sales. What they should do is drop the eMac(for consumers) and lower iMac prices(799-1499) and introduce an aluminum Cube(will we ever let Apple live down that computer?). Yeah, maybe this post is starting to sound like another "This is what Apple needs to do to make me happy" post, but bear with me.

This AluCube would be a 1.6 G4 and be priced at 1699. Not much wiggle room, but it doesn't need that much. Besides, any higher or lower in price would canabalize sales of the respective product.

It would have base specs like the following:

- 1.6Ghz G4
- 512megs RAM
- 60GB HDD, 7200RPM
- Video card with 64 megs RAM

Now, in order to bring iMac prices down, Apple might have to lower the proc speed, which probably isn't too good an idea from a PR perspective. (This post starts to sound more fantasysing with every sentence) Or else, as netromac said, they would become too cheap.

Yeah, probably never gonna happen, but it'd be nice.

[Quagmire]

i think apple should make the new imac like the original, a true consumer machine, that was cheap and easy to use with all the power. you know a real "computer for the rest of us"

Then get the emac. They are the same design as the old imacs but, on steroids.

[windowsblowsass]

Then get the emac. They are the same design as the old imacs but, on steroids.
i already have one and you know it :lol:

[AppleLuver54]

I would like more Random Access Memory(RAM)imac G4 is kinda slow dont ya think and i hope it has at least 2.5 GigaHertz(GHZ)Also a bigger HDD I store a lot of Crap on my Mac.But the people at apple are pretty Eh!?!I think they should make a game console.

[psgamer0921]

A G5? That'd sure be nice :)

[Barto]

I would like more Random Access Memory(RAM)imac G4 is kinda slow dont ya think and i hope it has at least 2.5 GigaHertz(GHZ)Also a bigger HDD I store a lot of Crap on my Mac.But the people at apple are pretty Eh!?!I think they should make a game console.

AppleLuver. Is that like ChickenLover?

http://southparkspot.com/southpic/slug2.jpg

[Quagmire]

I do not want the pizza box design. But, if we know apple they will make the pizza box imac look great.

[stoo]

Btw: Don't tell me about the eMac (that hunk of plastic was originally created to make inroads into the education market - you can't tell me consumers actually prefer that design over the iMac can you? I think it is selling b/c of the low price point or features/value ratio.)

Why, of course I'd prefer an iMac over an eMac, if the iMac actually had better hardware at a non ridiculous price... ;)

Anyways, stop all this cack about "normal" users not needing more than 500MHz. A low end G4 might be functionally the same as a 1.5 GHz one, but a spot of image resizing, MP3 ripping/transcoding, DV messing, DVD burning, even web browsing make big CPU demands. Tried to play UT 2004 on a sub 1GHz Mac with a low end video card? :eek: . Remember, consumers desire The Snappy™ too.

[propellerhead]

Over at Macrumors.com


Reports continue to indicate that the next iMac revision will sport a G5 processor.

A newer report has claimed that the new iMac will have a case redesign and incorporate a wireless keyboard and mouse.

Update: Appleinsider posts a possible description of the case design of the new iMac -- described as a "pizza box" with motherboard vertically mounted behind the display.

Update 2: One report suggests that hangable display and G5 iMac are one in the same.

Update 3: CBS Marketwatch reports:

Merrill Lynch analyst Steven Milunovich released a research note saying he believes Apple will unveil a new iMac at the company's developers conference in San Francisco next week. Milunovich also raised his price target on Apple to $39 from $32 a share.

It doesn't sound like the next iMac will be headless.

:p

Lets hope the specs are decent (I've been hearing single sub-2Ghz 970s). And for the love of God, don't include the 5200FX as the GPU!

:mad:

[DMBand0026]

I don't care if it's headless, drop a G5 in there and lower the price and people will flock to it.

[propellerhead]

I don't care if it's headless, drop a G5 in there and lower the price and people will flock to it.

I know I will....as soon as I get enough disposable cash.

:p

[bassplayinMacFiend]

While a headless iMac would be great, I think the iMac needs to incorporate upgradeable video cards, especially if the display is attached. Video cards are being revised as fast or faster than CPUs.

[Quagmire]

In relation to the imac G5 I found a design concept. The computer itself is so thin the cd drive can't fit as shown. I see it as a attempt to resurrect the cube. The vent on the top is from the cube, the computer case being incased by plastic is from the cube. I am not trying to bash the cube. It was a nice design and computer. To be able to make the design work you will need to put the combo/superdrive on the top similar to the cube. I do not know why it says Himac.Yes, the pictures are old. It still could be a concept but, most likely not going to happen.

http://www.applele.com/home/picture_b_himac_r07a.html

[DMBand0026]

I wonder if you noticed that the thing is curved, it's not flat on the back. The CD could fit. That's a beautiful design. I really like it.

[spiff]

I think there is some dispute over where the iMac should be in terms of specs. I hear some saying the new design should use cheaper parts and be around $1000 and some saying they want a lot of pro features. The iMac is the middle of the road desktop from Apple. They have the eMac for the user who wants a mac but just wants e-mail and that sort of thing. The Powermac is for the professionals with a pretty hefty price tag. I think the iMac will be keeping it's little under to a little over $2000 price. Which should put it's features right between the eMac and Powermac for someone who wants something a little bit faster for games or home video editing, somebody who wants their computer to last a little while longer so they use the new cool devices coming out down the road, but doesn't need a a $3000 Powermac. It should definitely go G5 amd I think it would be wise for it to have some upradable features, specifically an accessable AGP slot to uprade the GPU. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a $2000 computer. It should ship with something decent too, like the Ati 9800 Pro or at least a BTO option for it, maybe the 9600 XT as base. All in one design is fine, the one great thing about the iMac has always been the monitor attatched to it, which probably accounts for a big chunk of the price tag. Someting like 1.6 or 1.8 G5's is likely. I'm really hoping the new design has upradable features, easier accessable RAM slots, GPU, hard drive, and maybe even a PCI slot. I know Apple is all about design, but they can easily make something look great and still have these features and be around the same price. A $2000 computer should have these features.

[pscates2.0]

spiff, give my idea a read in the "new imacs imminent thread" in this same forum. Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines.

In a nutshell, I say "let the eMac become the iMac...a 17" G4-based AIO, which, along with the iBook represents Apple's consumer/education/affordable offerings."

Then create an all new headless machine, G5-based and in aluminum (not a tower), simply called The Mac. With DVI and all the usual I/O and optical options. Introduce, along with it, a new 17" display that matches the styling of the new Cinema Displays.

Someone can then buy The Mac as is (bundled with 17"), alone to use with their current prized CRT or LCD OR buy The Mac and treat themselves to the 20" or 23". Case color matches (leave the glossy white to the iBook and new iMac (formerly eMac), so no problems there.

A perfectly-perched headless mid-range machine (nicely covering $1,000-2,000, give or take, depending on configurations and options).

At $1,999 the G5 towers take over. But the displays will now have THREE different Apple products they can be paired with: G5, PowerBook and The Mac. Mid-range "prosumer" types get what they've wanted all along: headless design in an affordable, powerful box.

The iMac gets to stay AIO (albeit CRT-based...but who cares), so the "the iMac should stay AIO" crowd is satisfied too.

Personally, I think it's the best damn idea about how to go about all this that I've ever heard.

:D :p

Nothing gets "stepped on", nothing gets drastically altered or its memory defiled. The iMac simply reverts to being a cute, affordable curvy jellybean, only with 17" and a G4 this time. This new model, The Mac, would have such wide appeal, seeing as how it can sell to both those who need a monitor and those already HAVE one. Pack it with a 1.8-2.0 G5, price it as cheap as possible (don't get excessively cute with the industrial design so you're not forced to create funky, EXPENSIVE components).

Problem solved.

:)

[Messiahtosh]

Nice thinking Paul, too bad it wont happen as confirmed by Apple. They say a "new iMac will be announced and available in September" which would mean that there will not be "The Mac" switching places with the iMac and eMac. Looks like just a stylized plus G5 upgrade. :|

[Luca]

They might not be changing the names around, but we still have no idea what they'll actually do to the lineup. While keeping the name "iMac" for the midrange desktop is pretty much certain given the announcement, I do believe they'll somehow change their strategy. I mean, how could they not change how the consumer/prosumer desktop line is set up? Obviously the idea of having a luxury version of the eMac with the flat screen, external speakers and the swivel arm for a few hundred bucks extra didn't work. But if the name is going to remain "the iMac" and that implies it'll stay an AIO, what else can they do?

Maybe there will just be a big surprise come September. I'm looking forward to it. But I really do hope there's a consumer-level Mac that can take a few upgrades. I have an older PowerMac, mainly because I need desktop power for a low price, but also because I love throwing upgrades into it to make it as personal as possible. A few months ago I was on an eMac, and while it was good enough for pretty much everything I did, I didn't like how sterile and boring it was. But I liked being able to buy a NEW Mac. If there's no upgradable, lower priced Mac available, I'll just keep buying used PowerMacs when I want to upgrade (which shouldn't be often, given how far you can upgrade a typical PowerMac).

Now, I have no idea how much that actually plays into Apple's marketing strategy. I'm not a typical user I guess; at the least, I am not that demanding beyond a home user other than my requirement for a computer that's fun and personalized, not just one that gets the job done. So as much as I'd like Apple to release a midrange, upgradable iMac (I'd absolutely LOVE a full-size AGP slot plus a processor daughtercard!), I'm not counting on it.

I guess there's always the possibility of the iMac retaining a similar position in the lineup, but with a much improved feature set over the eMac. For example, one that is similar to the PowerMacs but with a single G5 processor instead of a dual. A 2.0 GHz G5, 512 MB of RAM, 160 GB hard drive, 8x Superdrive, and 128 MB Radeon 9600XT on the high end would be nearly as good as a PowerMac, and a huge improvement over the eMac. Then at least the high price would be justified, and people might actually consider spending the extra money for an iMac over an eMac. I remember when I bought my eMac, I had considered an iMac because of the beautiful flat panel, but given the amazing deal I got on the eMac, I just couldn't NOT go for it.

[Trumpetman]

I think if Apple doesn't go headless and does go high end on this, their goose is going to finally be cooked. The retail pricing on their towers actually keeps going up while the rest of the industry is going down. The cheapest tower today is $1999 for goodness sakes. $1599 use to be the starting point and that was back when the rest of the computer industry was actually selling towers at $1299-1499.

On the PC side it isn't hard to find a very common headless tower, with say a single 2+ ghz processor, 512 megs or ram (usually expandible to about 2 gigs), 100+ gig HD (usually now 120-160 gigs) a DVD+-R burner, and some sort of passible videocard (5200 class) for right around $700. I'm not talking some assemble it yourself machine, some rare deal or even some Dell on special. This is walk into Best Buy and find it on a shelf.

I say this not because the eMac can't meet some of these specs. But the point is people do not want to limit the machine in order to get certain display choices. Also if Apple does it they way it currently sounds in speculation. They will release it for $1599-1699, more than $400 more than the ORIGINAL iMac and thing they have done something good.

In a way they will have, they will have finally proven all those death-watch naysayers right as they drift to 1% marketshare. Apple needs an affordable headless tower at under a grand with a DVD-R and a single 2 ghz G5. They will continue to lose marketshare until they provide it. They could easily provide it in a mini-aluminum tower as was suggested here and most Mac users would easily pay $999 for what would be $699 from the PC guys, but with great Apple styling.

If they go above that (and I have no doubt they will) they are writing off their computer business for a future filled with iPods.

Nick

[Quagmire]

I have heard about this idea for a long time. The imac can stay an aio. For $1299 you get the 17" 1.6 Ghz G5 with a lcd screen. But, if you do not want the screen you can special order it headless for the lowered price of $899-$999. You can do the same for the higher models as well. $1599 for the 17" 1.8 Ghz G5 with lcd scren. Headless for $1299. The 20" 2.0 or 1.8 Ghz G5 lcd for $1999. Headless for $1699.

[pscates2.0]

I have to kinda admit I'm with you on this (trumpetman, that is).

Personally, I'm an AIO kinda guy. But I also think I'm in the minority on this one, and if Apple - after years now - doesn't/can't hear the clamor for an affordable headless unit (never mind the name right now), then I have to wonder about their arrogance and business acumen.

I realize the position many people are in: they already have a nice display they've shelled out good money for. BUT, they're not doing the kind of work associated with, or requiring, a big honkin' dual G5 tower. So they're stuck with two AIO solutions, one horribly overpriced (and rendering their existing display useless). But they'd like a $999-$1,999 priced powerful box that provides a bit more "oomph" than a G4-based iMac, but not as pricey as a full-blown tower (and that they'll NEVER upgrade or add to).

Even though I'm a full-tilt AIO lover, I see and totally understand the desire for a headless mid-range unit, falling between the eMac and G5 towers.

For the sake of Apple, switchers, a healthy vibrant platform AND to show me that Apple doesn't constantly have their fingers plugged into their ears, I'd love to see this upcoming iMac simply be that.

Keep the name, I don't care. It's the thought behind it that counts: make the iBook and eMac the G4-based solutions, for consumers and students. But fill that middle ground with something more appealing to the masses. AND if you introduce it with a matching 17" display (see my sig, by the way), then you STILL get the benefit of selling displays (and probably a lot more of them because you've just added an all-new product that you can sell displays with, in addition to the G5 towers and PowerBooks).

I really think, unless this new iMac is just something mind-blowingly amazing in some way we've not even considered yet, if they follow an overpriced AIO path, NOTHING will change and we'll be right back here in no time, talking about all this again, and bitching about the dismal state of the iMac.

:(

I don't want that. Nobody does.

[pscates2.0]

I have heard about this idea for a long time. The imac can stay an aio. For $1299 you get the 17" 1.6 Ghz G5 with a lcd screen. But, if you do not want the screen you can special order it headless for the lowered price of $899-$999. You can do the same for the higher models as well. $1599 for the 17" 1.8 Ghz G5 with lcd scren. Headless for $1299. The 20" 2.0 or 1.8 Ghz G5 lcd for $1999. Headless for $1699.

Well then you get into this crazy thing of dual models, only slightly modified (with display, and without). Or having to design it in such an open-ended, modular way as to look nice and cool WITH a display attached, and without. I just think that's needlessly complicated, and asking a bit much of Ive and the gang.

The simpler solution is the other one. One design, one core set of features. Perhaps have the optical drive, graphics card and hard drive capacity be the differentiating factors? But even then, you provide full BTO to each, so that - for the first time in the iMac/midrange area - you could, say, buy the cheaper Combo Drive model, BUT upgrade to the 128MB graphics (from the stock 64MB) or bump up the hard drive size, even if you're buying the low-end "entry" model (not everyone wants, or needs, a SuperDrive...but they'd appreciate great graphics and roomy hard drives if they choose, and not feel "punished" for opting for a Combo Drive box, and having to make due with smaller hard drive or less powerful graphics card. Choice.

Make it flexible, for crying out loud, and quit locking people in. They've done it with the iMac ever since the DV series came out (tying features to colors to price). I think they'd be astonished at the success they'd have if they offered a headless solution in the low $1,000's range and made it fairly BTO-friendly.

[Eugene]

An additional reason why the next iMac will be AIO is simply because selling separate units doesn't give Apple as much pricing freedom as it wants. In addition, Apple really really wants to sell 20" ACDs to their Pro desktop users. Not having a 17" LCD available for sale separately will help there.

Apple doesn't want you using some beige CRT with the iMac. Apple doesn't want a hulking DVI port on any face of the unit. A built-in monitor is also a perfect place to hide a higher-gain AirPort antenna. Do you really see low-profile pizza-boxes in homes? Nope. Some people are buying the stubby SFF Shuttle PCs because it's a fad, but the pizza-boxes are mostly found in office cubes.

[Barto]

I think if Apple doesn't go headless and does go high end on this, their goose is going to finally be cooked. The retail pricing on their towers actually keeps going up while the rest of the industry is going down. The cheapest tower today is $1999 for goodness sakes. $1599 use to be the starting point and that was back when the rest of the computer industry was actually selling towers at $1299-1499.

On the PC side it isn't hard to find a very common headless tower, with say a single 2+ ghz processor, 512 megs or ram (usually expandible to about 2 gigs), 100+ gig HD (usually now 120-160 gigs) a DVD+-R burner, and some sort of passible videocard (5200 class) for right around $700. I'm not talking some assemble it yourself machine, some rare deal or even some Dell on special. This is walk into Best Buy and find it on a shelf.

I say this not because the eMac can't meet some of these specs. But the point is people do not want to limit the machine in order to get certain display choices. Also if Apple does it they way it currently sounds in speculation. They will release it for $1599-1699, more than $400 more than the ORIGINAL iMac and thing they have done something good.

In a way they will have, they will have finally proven all those death-watch naysayers right as they drift to 1% marketshare. Apple needs an affordable headless tower at under a grand with a DVD-R and a single 2 ghz G5. They will continue to lose marketshare until they provide it. They could easily provide it in a mini-aluminum tower as was suggested here and most Mac users would easily pay $999 for what would be $699 from the PC guys, but with great Apple styling.

If they go above that (and I have no doubt they will) they are writing off their computer business for a future filled with iPods.

Nick
Rant rant rant rant rant.

Where's the evidence that there are hundreds of millions of people who would be willing converts IF ONLY Apple offered a cheap tower? How can God even EXIST in a WORLD WITHOUT A CHEAP APPLE TOWER!? WHY!?

The humanity!

[Trumpetman]

Rant rant rant rant rant.

Where's the evidence that there are hundreds of millions of people who would be willing converts IF ONLY Apple offered a cheap tower? How can God even EXIST in a WORLD WITHOUT A CHEAP APPLE TOWER!? WHY!?

The humanity!

You have two factors to consider that could basically cause a quick Apple demise. First as for the hundreds of millions, that's a strawman. How about Apple just starting to move over a million units per quarter again? How about their total sales trending up instead of stagnating? How about you don't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result because that is insanity.

Secondly, Luca and others have mentioned that there are plenty of folks who have to get by with older towers. These are towers that were likely purchased in the $700-900 range because Apple only offered all in ones at that price point. We are buying older towers that once retailed at $1600-2000 and finding ways to upgrade them whenever the money falls into our laps. (Also a big consideration) But Apple made a large break with the G5's in multiple ways. Serial drives, very high speed memory, older ADC monitors no longer work with them, etc.

When you have to consider not just an upgrade on a platform, but also all the secondary equipment as well, it can also be cause to reconsider what platform you are using. If you have an older Mac that came with a DVD drive and a 20 gig HD, you may have added a nice 120 gig HD and a DVD-R to it. The 120 would get pulled when you sell it, and the DVD would go back in from it's place in the closet. The 17-19 inch monitor, you reuse, etc.

There are plenty of guys out there like this in both Mac and PC land. They don't need all pro everything. They have a few expensive pieces to their set up that they might like to move from machine to machine. They've been getting by with older G4's but the G5 forces a break.

It is the type of break that might not heal. One where someone says, I've got a choice between an all-in-one, and paying the Apple premium on graphics chip, HD size, and display. I've got to spend $2000 to keep any of my previous investment, or lastly, I can use what I've already got along with some PC parts to build a PC.

We don't have to be talking millions. We can talk say 300,000 people in the whole world. That is the difference between selling 1.1 million, which would be growth for Apple, or 500,000 (down from 800,000) which could signal the death knell for the Mac as a viable platform.

Also what the hell is so hard about believing that there could be some people on this planet who don't get massive chunks of cash all at once. Is it really so hard to believe someone might get, say a tower at Christmas, and say a display with their tax return? Or get the tower as a graduation present and work the summer for the display?

Apple has been inflexible and pricey to the point of being under 2% marketshare. Don't be surprised if following the same path leads them down to under 1%.

Nick

[Barto]

Gone outside lately nick? 99% of PCs sold have the monitor included. You've made this assertion, YOU back it up with data showing that a significant number* of people who are not currently buying Macs would buy a Mac if Apple sold cheap towers.

* say an increase in sales by 25%. That's an extra million Macs a year, assuming people buy a new tower every 2.5 years that is 2.5 million people.

[Messiahtosh]

Okay, Mr. Grim Reaper can stop bitching now. Things will be alright, because unit sales are not down to 500,000. And who says that sales of half a million Macs would "signal the death knell"? Gateway sells that many PC's a month, all they had to do was shut down their retail stores.

Apple has the cash to at least trial and error a few times, if that is what it takes to get it right.

[pscates2.0]

An additional reason why the next iMac will be AIO is simply because selling separate units doesn't give Apple as much pricing freedom as it wants. In addition, Apple really really wants to sell 20" ACDs to their Pro desktop users. Not having a 17" LCD available for sale separately will help there.

What if it keeps coming down to 20" displays or NO display sold at all. Wouldn't they be happy with selling gobs of 17" AND 20", and let the customers themselves decide if they're "pro" enough to get whichever? Budgets, desk space, real-life needs, etc. all factor in and Apple doesn't know every situation. I'd love to buy an Apple wide 17" in the new Cinema Display design. I'd be more than served by 1440x900, but that'll be $699 or more (being Apple, probably more) they won't get from me, OR $1299 because I probably can't justify that either. So now they've got NOTHING. Does that factor in at all, and count as better or worse? :confused:

Apple doesn't want you using some beige CRT with the iMac. Apple doesn't want a hulking DVI port on any face of the unit.

Well, you know...maybe it's time that "what Apple wants" needs to be modified a bit to work in the real world. Besides...if this headless thing were priced right AND Apple provided wonderful bundled incentives, I bet most people would be happy to opt for the matching, high-quality Apple displays anyway. I doubt very many people would put a beige CRT next to it. In my scenario, they'd have three beautiful Apple displays to choose from. And if Apple is going to let a few "beige CRT matched with new headless unit" determine their course and override common sense, then they're being pretty damn lame...and deserve the 2% or whatever it is they currently enjoy. I love 'em to pieces, but they're not perfect and can just as blockheaded as any other company.

"What Apple wants" has seemed to paint them into a corner where their once-proud flagship doesn't seem as popular or adored and their laptops, iPods and G5 towers are the sought-after, popular stuff. As for "hulking DVI port", the one on my PowerBook is about 1" wide by .5" tall...I'd hardly call that "hulking" or obnoxious. And if it were placed on the back of a headless unit, then what's the problem? I don't even understand your comment there, about the DVI thing. It isn't "hulking", and it wouldn't be anywhere other than the rear...where everything else traditionally goes anyway (Ethernet, modem, FireWire, USB, audio, etc.). I do, however, agree with the AirPort antenna thing. They seem to work better when perched higher (built into a display or whatnot). That's what engineers are for...figure out a way around it. :)

Do you really see low-profile pizza-boxes in homes? Nope. Some people are buying the stubby SFF Shuttle PCs because it's a fad, but the pizza-boxes are mostly found in office cubes.

You should know this more than anyone, E...did we really see dome-shaped all-in-ones with a cool-ass articulating display arm before the iMac G4? Did we see round, colorful computers that looked like little pieces of art before the iMac? Did we see 23" (and now 30") displays, gorgeously designed? How about a G4 tower crammed into an 8" Kleenex-box Cube? Out of any company I can think of, hasn't Apple - in the past five or so years - been the one that constantly treads new ground, doing stuff that no one else is doing or has attempted and, more than not, is met with amazing success and praise?

No, Eugene...I don't really see low-profile pizza-boxes in homes. Just as I never saw any of the wild shit above in homes either before Apple did them, and made them acceptable, commonplace and part of the landscape.

:)

I don't ever want to think "hasn't been done" automatically equals "can't/shouldn't be done". Crap...if Apple themselves thought that, then we'd still be using the square, clunky beige towers you mentioned earlier, you know? Probably still be using SCSI, ADB, etc. too.

I'd trust Apple - a better track record than anyone I can think of - to do something, do it right and better and cooler than it has been done before (if at all). I totally think Jobs and Ive could make a wonder "low profile pizza box" that would win awards, get tons of press, meet the demands of so many Mac users (and potential ones too).

If you're not nuts about a headless box idea, then what would you suggest - keeping things AIO, as you want - would/could be done to make that mid-range hop again? I mean, if you've done something a certain way for a few years and the results and numbers are kinda sagging and you're hearing all this feedback and user requests and seeing all these fanboy mockups and got your ear to the Apple-centric message boards, are you going to just come out with the same thing, only hoping that a new G5 in it will be enough to sway people?

I dig AIO to no end, but it doesn't seem to be holding the appeal it once did. So what would you do? You don't think a new G5-based AIO is the end-all/be-all solution, do you? Doesn't address anything at play in the real world.

And just on a common sense level, I find it odd that a major player like Apple would have TWO AIO products. Maybe the eMac is enough. We're getting out of that range of pure consumers and first-time grannies who would genuinely appreciate the AIO ease of the eMac.

[jade]

I think if Apple doesn't go headless and does go high end on this, their goose is going to finally be cooked. The retail pricing on their towers actually keeps going up while the rest of the industry is going down. The cheapest tower today is $1999 for goodness sakes. $1599 use to be the starting point and that was back when the rest of the computer industry was actually selling towers at $1299-1499.

On the PC side it isn't hard to find a very common headless tower, with say a single 2+ ghz processor, 512 megs or ram (usually expandible to about 2 gigs), 100+ gig HD (usually now 120-160 gigs) a DVD+-R burner, and some sort of passible videocard (5200 class) for right around $700. I'm not talking some assemble it yourself machine, some rare deal or even some Dell on special. This is walk into Best Buy and find it on a shelf.

I say this not because the eMac can't meet some of these specs. But the point is people do not want to limit the machine in order to get certain display choices. Also if Apple does it they way it currently sounds in speculation. They will release it for $1599-1699, more than $400 more than the ORIGINAL iMac and thing they have done something good.

In a way they will have, they will have finally proven all those death-watch naysayers right as they drift to 1% marketshare. Apple needs an affordable headless tower at under a grand with a DVD-R and a single 2 ghz G5. They will continue to lose marketshare until they provide it. They could easily provide it in a mini-aluminum tower as was suggested here and most Mac users would easily pay $999 for what would be $699 from the PC guys, but with great Apple styling.

If they go above that (and I have no doubt they will) they are writing off their computer business for a future filled with iPods.

Nick
Here's what I found from HP for $1015


AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3200+ operating at 2.0GHz
Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional Edition
512 MB DDR / PC3200 (1 DIMM)
250GB 7200 rpm Hard Drive
8X DVD+RW/+R drive (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
1 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, 9-in-1 card reader + WinDVD (in the front)
128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForceFX(TM) 5200XT, TV-Out
Integrated 5.1 Capable Sound w/ front audio ports
HP Internet Keyboard, HP Optical Mouse
Harman-Kardon 2-Piece Active Speakers
Microsoft(R) Works 7.0/Money 2004/MSN Encarta Plus

So for just about $1000 you get a 64-bit PC. And spend a few extra bucks and you can have serial ATA. So based on this competition...would you really want an $1800 imac (for the OS agnostic people)

For Apple to compete against this, it is time for a reasonable priced headless imac. The average tower price for the mid-range is $600-900. Apple is missing the price by a long shot...and the emac does not cut it in this class.

You could even add a 20 inch display and still be past the 1.6 powermac in performance, for even cheaper than you could get it on ebay.

[Trumpetman]

Gone outside lately nick? 99% of PCs sold have the monitor included. You've made this assertion, YOU back it up with data showing that a significant number* of people who are not currently buying Macs would buy a Mac if Apple sold cheap towers.

* say an increase in sales by 25%. That's an extra million Macs a year, assuming people buy a new tower every 2.5 years that is 2.5 million people.

And that included monitor reflects a choice. It can be a choice of 15, 17,19,21 inch CRT or 15,17,19,23,30 inch LCD. Sometimes this bundling is even done by GASP resellers who then push the products together and, I know this is hard to believe, MAKE MONEY by pushing Apple products with third party products.

When you do that you end up with MORE retail locations. You end up with resellers who support you instead of SUE you which is what is happening to Apple right now.

It can also reflect the choice to include it in the bundled price for less, instead of using it to force people to buy more than they want.

Tell me who else in the market uses the display to force you to accept their ridiculous prices on ram, drives and processor options? What if you want a really fast Mac, but can't afford the 20 lcd that Apple wants you to purchase to get it. Right now the answer is NO SALE which reflects in the stagnant unit numbers.

As for how you get to 2.5 million people, over 2.5 years, all it shows is my point is that the small thing do add up. They also subtract up just as well and that could mean a serious slide pretty quickly when reversed.

Nick

[pscates2.0]

[A brief disclaimer, so we don't wind up talking about the looks...the following drawing is not high-design, or contains no Ive-inspired charm or coolness. I just wanted to show, give or take some measurements and whatnot, an idea or a what COULD work, at a very basic level. Don't get hung up on all the tiny crap, when it's more "big picture" stuff at hand here :) )

First, I hate the word "pizza box" (makes me think of my old Quadra 610, with its beige, square look)... :p

But if Apple DID design a headless unit of some sort, I think it would be really cool if they did two things: carve out an area on the bottom and the back that is the same thickness as the base on the new displays. Then, for those so inclined, they can "mate" the display right up to the back of the unit. No mechanical fastening of any sort, just a nice "slip groove" fit. Again, for those that want the two sitting together. Some - due to work habits, desk space, etc. may want the box placed toward the back of their desk (with a picture of their kids on top, or whatever) and the display - Apple's or whoever's - sitting directly in front of them, off to the side, etc.

Again, just a simple groove milled into the back and bottom where the display can sorta "lock in" (like a tongue and groove joint, although wider). Make sense?

Anyway, you could have a flat-ish, wide thing, with all the ports on the back. On the front, is your optical drive, power button, a USB and FireWire port (those things on the front, IMO, are a must-have these days) and headphone jack (just like the G5 towers, really). Across the back, all your usual ports, including DVI.

Not much too it, really. Vents where needed. I'm no engineer, so that's why the size, thickness, venting, etc. is not the point here...just the overall, larger concept of a separate "headless" unit, in G5/PowerBook aluminum (to match Apple's displays too, for those going that route).

Anyway, I'm sure Apple could figure some way out to provide a nice price incentive to you, when ordering your unit, to go wiht one of their displays. I'm not a bean counter, so I won't even go there. But I know it can - and should - be done.

Ive could work some magic (texture, swoops, maybe some nice curves or foldbacks, etc.) to make it a lot more "Apple-y" than below, but you get the idea. Would anyone be offended by something on their desk like this? What if the graphic card slot was reachable and upgradable? What if the RAM was too (no soldered on stuff)? What if the entire back (or side) pulled out as one compact unit (like the Cube's "guts" did), where you could easily access - and upgrade - graphics card, hard drive and RAM. Would THAT be enough expandability for most prosumer types? No slots (get a tower) and no extra drive bays (again, get a tower). Just the three things people seem to want accessible (RAM, hard drive, graphics card)?

As you can see, a one-sized unit can look decent paired with the 23", 20" and (in my world) 17" Cinema display. Maybe figuring most people in this range are going to opt for the 17" or 20", so maybe design it, size-wise, to look best with those. Those pairing it with a 23" may find it looking a bit top-heavy...but you know what, screw you. You have a 23" Cinema Display, so you've got very little to bitch about. :D

You could place it below your Apple display (or any other, minus the cool "lock-in" trick), you set it to the side. You could put in on a shelf at knee level (some like that, I guess). On the back of your desk, with a picture or other small, light knick-knack on top, etc. Maybe something roughly the size of a DVD player, give or take (or allow for cooling/ventilation concerns).

Anyway, just for kicks and what-ifs...

http://homepage.mac.com/pscates/mockups/themac.jpg

[Trumpetman]

Okay, Mr. Grim Reaper can stop bitching now. Things will be alright, because unit sales are not down to 500,000. And who says that sales of half a million Macs would "signal the death knell"? Gateway sells that many PC's a month, all they had to do was shut down their retail stores.

Apple has the cash to at least trial and error a few times, if that is what it takes to get it right.


Gateway sells that many a month. I was speaking about quarters which are three months. That would mean Apple is selling 167k Macs a month, a much lower figure than I think you are imagining. Even at 800k per quarter it is still less than 300k computers per month.

You also neglect to mention that in order for Gateway to get back to health, they shut down their stores and bought the entire eMachines company. Who is Apple going to buy that happens to make the exact same products (Macs) but just does it a whole lot more efficiently and with better margins?

Apple is a one shot deal. They have fewer options available to them since they are the only maker of Macs.

Nick

[hmurchison]

Pretty cool Paul. I like that design, I think you could go a wee bit taller on the unit and still have a svelte computer.

[Barto]

And that included monitor reflects a choice. It can be a choice of 15, 17,19,21 inch CRT or 15,17,19,23,30 inch LCD. Sometimes this bundling is even done by GASP resellers who then push the products together and, I know this is hard to believe, MAKE MONEY by pushing Apple products with third party products.

When you do that you end up with MORE retail locations. You end up with resellers who support you instead of SUE you which is what is happening to Apple right now.

It can also reflect the choice to include it in the bundled price for less, instead of using it to force people to buy more than they want.

Tell me who else in the market uses the display to force you to accept their ridiculous prices on ram, drives and processor options? What if you want a really fast Mac, but can't afford the 20 lcd that Apple wants you to purchase to get it. Right now the answer is NO SALE which reflects in the stagnant unit numbers.

As for how you get to 2.5 million people, over 2.5 years, all it shows is my point is that the small thing do add up. They also subtract up just as well and that could mean a serious slide pretty quickly when reversed.

Nick
*cough* *splutter*

The 20" LCD iMac, 17" LCD iMac and 17" CRT eMac superdrive have almost the same specs. Apple isn't using displays to force specifications on people.

And I don't think anyone will miss the irony of you calling me strawman earlier.

[thegelding]

what would be nice (very nice work paul...doesn't even look like a strobe scanner this time ;) ) with this set up is that apple can sell lots of monitors...this could be a go-between from laptop to desktop...one computer for home and work for people who don't use a portable on the way to work or sitting on the beach, but who use a computer at both home and work...just unhook the monitor from the Mac, leave the monitor on the desk and take the Mac to work and hook up to the monitor there

sell docks, 2 for 1 pricing so people want more than one set up...so it is easy to take apart

would work great for me

g

i agree that it should be an inch thicker...just because of the heat issues

the up side of this design...very user friendly, unobtrusive

the down side...not iMac cute and lovable

[pscates2.0]

True. I could probably do LOTS of things to it, but let's not go down that road because we'll lose track of the main subject at hand... :p

The point is, it's not - even at a quickly thrown-together, Ive-lacking state - an offensive, horrendous thing, is it? Okay, visually add an inch or two height, if you want. If you could buy it for, say $1099 or so, would they not fly off the shelves? I mean, more expensive as you add SuperDrive and higher-end graphics, but that much muscle for that price. And if you buy an Apple display, Apple makes it really worth your while?

:)

It woulud be aluminum, just like the G5 and displays. Probably some softly rounded corners (nothing harsh or "poke-y"). Nice matte finish, maybe? Vents could be slits or G5-inspired speed holes? Smooth on the sides (nothing there) and maybe some gentle swoops and curves throughout (leave that to Ive), in certain areas?

If you were a PC user, truly looking to cross over to the Mac BUT you already had quite an investment in a nice ViewSonic or Sony LCD, wouldn't this be the machine you'd want Apple to make for you? Still get to use your nice display, don't have to spend $1999 to get into a entry-level G5 tower.

If you were a current Mac user, looking to upgrade from a 700MHz eMac and wanted a nice wide Apple display, wouldn't this be where you'd put your focus, instead of having to lay out over $3,000 for a G5 tower and 20" display? How about one of these boxes and a nice 17" for under $2,000 instead?

Why do I sound like a salesman all of a sudden... :lol: "I can get you into this machine for..."

Assuming so many - given an attractive bundle price - would go ahead and get an Apple display, what's the problem? Instead of worrying about "Apple only wanting to sell 20" to pro customers", how about they just sell a shitload of 17", 20" and 23" to pros, PowerBook users and new The Mac buyers? A sale is a sale, right? Rather it be an Apple 17" than a ViewSonic, right?

[pscates2.0]

what would be nice (very nice work paul...doesn't even look like a strobe scanner this time ;)

I'm gonna give you a smack. :p

the down side...not iMac cute and lovable

The upside...doesn't HAVE to be, because it ain't an iMac. ;)

The eMac either gets rechristened "iMac" and be done with it, OR...well, sometimes you have to shoot old, lame horses...life goes on.

:(

If this thing brought Apple back into the race and they were blowing them out the door and the press was cooing over them and Apple stock and rep were soaring...would anyone give a damn over the word "iMac" anymore?

This ain't an iMac. Cute and cuddly is or the eMac and iPod mini. This is a serious machine, going balls-out to do what all those lame-ass Switcher commercials could never do.

:)

However, I do realize the importance of a name, and iMac is one of the biggies. But some of you would just have to come to grips with the fact that "iMac" doesn't necessarily, always and forever, mean "cute AIO".

Call this thing iMac, then. Call it iMac20. Call it iMac the Ass Kicker. The point is, I bet my left lung it would sell like nobody's business, only because I think it sits a bit more comfortably in the "real world" this time. A world where a) people at this level ($1000 and up) might be a bit more savvy and could muster the ability to hook a single DVI connection and b) one where people buy displays all the time, from lots of companies. No reason they should be left out of the Mac-using population if they so desire to come our way. Besides, they'll use this with their piece-of-shit low-end display, and when it poops out, they'll be so impressed with this machine, OS X, their new iPod, .Mac, etc. that they'll immediately go and replace with one of Apple's displays.

:)

Hell, put a voucher in the box so even if they don't get a display right then, they can - within a year, say - take that voucher and get a slightly less discount, but still nice (say $100 or so), off a new Apple display (17", 20", 23").

[spiff]

If apple was going to release a headless iMac I think they would have released a new 17 inch monitor with the new monitor line. That seems to make sense to me. An all in one design I don't think is a bad idea as long as you can upgrade the other features. Though some have a good point that many people would prefer, when upgrading their computer, to keep their monitor and just buy a new tower. It seems silly, I have a 15 inch flat panel iMac, if I were to buy a new computer I can't use that monitor which is really nice. But this just isn't Apples way unfortunately. But, if they make the iMac upgradable in other ways, so it has a longer life, people probably won't mind so much paying for a new monitor when the time comes to buy a new computer. Or, they may very well want to be keeping their old computer running anyway and will want a monitor with it. And, if the screens keep consistently getting better than people won't mind buying another monitor if it's better than the one they have. So, the all in one design isn't the best but it can work out if Apple does it right. If the iMac is worth $1000 without the monitor and the actual price with the monitor is $1700 then it's worth it, especially. This is more of course than on the PC side, spec to spec for the price, PC's are always going to be better. You could probably get PC tower with equivalent hardware for $800 and and a good 17 inch LCD for $500. So, the iMac is always going to be $400 or $500 more as far as hardware. I've accepted that, but that's not why I'm a mac user. The software, iLife, and the OS is worth that much to me and I think that goes for most everyone else. So, all in one, it can work, if Apple gives it some upgradability, which would be a big step, the iMac can be a good buy.

[pscates2.0]

spiff, hit the "Return" key about every 5-8 sentences. ;)

[Messiahtosh]

Damn Paul, good fucking posts.

[BRussell]

These new displays have VESA standard mounts. What about a kind of cross between a cube and an iMac 2? Keep the half-dome base essentially the same, or modified somewhat for G5s, and sell them sans display. Then you can buy any size display you want and just stick it on there with a screwdriver. Sell those mounting arms for the iMac as well as the standard stands for $50. If you want to upgrade your display, you can sell it or buy the standard mount and use it for a PowerMac.

You could choose to use the iMac with a mounted display like the iMac 2 or you could use it like the cube with a separate display. If you're cheap, and who isn't, you could plug your 8-year-old CRT into the VGA port on the iMac 3 and get a G5 without having to shell out $1800.

If they wanted, they could even downplay the detachable display, and continue to basically sell an all-in-one, but if you're in the know, you can use other displays with it.

[pscates2.0]

Yeah, that was the neat thing about these new displays, conforming to that VESA stuff, and instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with some wild-ass proprietary solution (that would only add cost), they seemed to say "hey, the solution for mounting this stuff is already out there...let's conform our design to it, for once...".

:)

Encouraging.

I think there's several valid ways to go on this, but I don't think it can be denied that a new approach to that mid-range is in order. Call it iMac or don't, I don't care...that's just fine details.

Had a machine like the one I talk about/mocked-up existed the past year or so, I believe I might've been able to switch about 4-5 more people to the Mac.

:(

And now, with Tiger on the horizon and the future that the G5/IBM represents, I'd really love to see Apple finally take the gloves off. If it means doing some things differently, fine. If it means turning a couple of traditions on their head, fine. No rule saying you can't.

But sitting here, saying you can't do this and you can't call this product that because of 5-6 year-old history (when SO much has changed in that time) is kinda silly and you're doomed to never sprouting beyond what a few people (maybe even Jobs himself) originally envisioned for the iMac. But things change all the time. You bend and grow with it and adapt, or you shrink on down to 1% and scratch your head wondering "well, why?".

Big picture, folks. Big picture...

:)

...and you STILL have the eMac as a totally respectable AIO to the market most interested in that (consumers/newbies/students/budget-conscious) to represent any cuteness/cuddle factor that may be desired or missed by some. NOTHING is lost here, folks, other than an expensive, unwieldy design that had its fair shake and time in the sun for a couple of years, yet never seemed to approach the appeal and success of the original jellybean anyway.

[Messiahtosh]

I think pscates has nailed this one down, perfectly. What I just do not understand is why Apple didnt announce their next gen at WWDC or scheduled a special event.

It's one thing to figure out what seems like a failsafe strategy, it's another thing to see Apple actually impliment it. :(

[pscates2.0]

I think pscates has nailed this one down, perfectly.

Me too, if I may be so bold... :p

Show me a downside...the theory, not the design (and not emotion-based, "but the iMac/mid-range has to be an AIO because that's what it's always been!" caterwauling either...remember, we're no longer talking about newbies and grannies here; that's eMac territory now, and they've got the AIO to see them through. We're firmly in $1000-2000 "prosumer" land now, where people are expected to know how to connect a single damn cable from a monitor to a box and not have their hand held every step of the way through everything and be a little more savvy, in general, about the whole idea of owning and using computers). People like me. No major tech whiz, but no slack-jawed numbnut either. I'm capable of connecting a cable or two, if necessary.

;)

I wonder if this is where Jobs and his famous ego/arrogance comes into play? He's holding tight, trying to bend everyone to what HE thinks is the way, and maybe not doing enough listening or surveying to hear what many in the Mac community are saying and asking for?

:confused:

I don't know. It's interesting, however this turns out. I wish they'd just go ahead and unveil the thing so we can just move on (and know, one way or the other). Then we can talk about the next eMac...

;)

[Dave Hagan]

Paul,

You're firing on all cylinders...good work!!! (As usual)

Love the design of the mockup! It is reminiscent of the good ole Power Mac 6100...

http://www.allaboutapple.com/museo/pictures/donazioni/powermac_6100_66.jpg

I think if you gave your mockup a shiny matte finish, with displays similar to the design of the new pro displays, only this time with a clear see through base and white frame, and I think this might be the close to the design? I do like it in aluminum though :)

[Quagmire]

Paul,

You're firing on all cylinders...good work!!! (As usual)

Love the design of the mockup! It is reminiscent of the good ole Power Mac 6100...

http://www.allaboutapple.com/museo/pictures/donazioni/powermac_6100_66.jpg

I think if you gave your mockup a shiny matte finish, with displays similar to the design of the new pro displays, only this time with a clear see through base and white frame, and I think this might be the close to the design? I do like it in aluminum though :)

:crys: You brought up an old memory. R.I.P Powermac 6100.

[Dave Hagan]

Could this (http://homepage.mac.com/davehagan/startup6100.mp3) be the new iMac's startup sound? :lol: :D

Edit - you should turn up your speakers really loud because it sounds really cool :smokey:

[Quagmire]

Could this (http://homepage.mac.com/davehagan/startup6100.mp3) be the new iMac's startup sound? :lol: :D

Why are you doing this to me? :crys more:

[pscates2.0]

Hey, I saw mentioned at .com where they said they had a sketch of the new iMac. Any further word on that? I'd love to see it! :eek:

Yeah, I was definitely thinking of my old Quadra 610 a bit earlier...

[pscates2.0]

I think if you gave your mockup a shiny matte finish, with displays similar to the design of the new pro displays, only this time with a clear see through base and white frame, and I think this might be the close to the design? I do like it in aluminum though :)

Dave, go back and read (starting on page 2 of this thread) why it's not done in the white glossy look. :)

Aluminum for a reason, and the displays pictured with it are the exact same ones now available. In fact, a 17" is added! So no separate displays in white/clear finishes, and if you go back and skim where I first begin talking about this (yesterday, July 4), it'll make a bit more sense.

:)

[Dave Hagan]

Okay, thanks, Pscates, I will read! I promise.

I the meantime, shall we call your mockup Piltdown Man 2? ;)

Power Mac 6100/60: PDM (Piltdown Man, the name for the the man whose skull was found by an archealogist in 1909 in Susses, England.
Originally believed to represent the missing link between man and ape,
Piltdown Man was determined to be a hoax in 1953.)

Technically this mockup should be the missing link between the eMac and the PowerMac, right? Anyway, I'm going to to go read now. Thanks.

[Eugene]

No, Eugene...I don't really see low-profile pizza-boxes in homes. Just as I never saw any of the wild shit above in homes either before Apple did them, and made them acceptable, commonplace and part of the landscape.
You're being silly. Power Mac 6100? LC? LP PCs? There were all very, very popular up through the mid-90s because the foot print of a CRT was already taking up lots of deskspace. From a company's perspective, if the end-user is just going to stack one on top of the other, why not dave them the trouble and mate the design?

And it's not really about what Apple wants...it's about what it must do. A third party LCD attached to an iMac. Apple can't sell that image. Apple isn't a generic box maker like Dell and it can't simply use Dell's model.

[Messiahtosh]

I was talking about the new iMac hype to a friend and someone else butted in with "Macs suck!" and I replied with something along the lines of...

"The Mac would not be such a niche product, if there were enough people that considered quality and usefulness over low grade, utilitarian computing. If you want to run Microsoft Office for your whole life, then go ahead. The Mac may be a niche product, but the company is profitable while serving that niche, there is no danger in continuing that corporate strategy. Since 1976 man...who else can claim such a long running tradition of excellence? Dell? No.

Apple is the BMW of the computer industry, offering high level performance machines, all the way around. Through innovative software, hardware, and operating system offerings, Apple will always have those customers who value the high end.

Sure, you could buy a $350 dollar PC, but what can it really do? Apple knows that the answer to that question is pretty much: "not too damn much." As a company, Apple realizes that buy selling a standard, they don't become known for offering cheap, low class equipment. They could easily offer a bargain basement PC, but why should they cater to a low standard?

I'll take my 1 inch thin PowerBook G4 with a 15.2'' wide screen display and blazingly fast G4 processor, 2 GB's of RAM, 80 GB hard drive, and 128 Radeon 9700 graphics card, with built in bluetooth and 802.11g networking, and a Superdrive and be happy for many years.

The point is, if you can afford it, there really is no alternative to the Apple solution. Running Mac OS X will make anyone's personal computing life more fast, enjoyable, and easier to do. It will make their professional life more productive too, because everything just works properly, like the finely crafted machine that it is, from the inside out."

I don't know where it came from, but it worked and everyone was horrified by my "Will Ferrell from Old School-like answer" that I gave. Anyway, I thought it pertained to this topic slightly. :)

[thegelding]

Hey, I saw mentioned at .com where they said they had a sketch of the new iMac. Any further word on that? I'd love to see it! :eek:
.

so would the people at ai.com


actually ticking some off...seems like such a empty promise...waiting for confirmation? from who?? SJ? ha...and why waiting, you are a rumor site...if you are worried, say "we have a photo here, not sure of the reliability as this is a new source, or the source is weak" etc


g

[pscates2.0]

You're being silly. Power Mac 6100? LC? LP PCs? There were all very, very popular up through the mid-90s because the foot print of a CRT was already taking up lots of deskspace. From a company's perspective, if the end-user is just going to stack one on top of the other, why not dave them the trouble and mate the design?

And it's not really about what Apple wants...it's about what it must do. A third party LCD attached to an iMac. Apple can't sell that image. Apple isn't a generic box maker like Dell and it can't simply use Dell's model.

Okay, first of all...did you say "see" or "saw"? Hate to get all Clinton on you, but I think you asked "do you 'see' pizza-boxes..." and I said "no, but only because Apple hasn't made them cool...". I mean what I said: I hadn't seen all that other wild stuff until Apple created it (the iMac, iMac G4, Cube, etc.), so what's that mean? Means they could re-do a pizza box in a way that was MUCH cooler than it was first time around.

I totally realize they were around a decade ago...I HAD one, a Quadra 610 (that qualifies as a pizza box design, right?). But that WAS a decade ago, and you didn't say "saw", so it seemed to me you were talking about TODAY, which is all towers and AIO and laptops from what I can see.

Doesn't mean Apple couldn't come along and make a non-tower desktop (we can quibble on the "pizza box" moniker...personally, I don't like it and it has a weird connotation to me). But something other than a full-blown, honkin' tower. Hell, a Cube-ish thing, even, would be okay. I'm just trying to stay away from round, circular stuff or any excessively cute/funky design that's going to require extra engineering, custom components, etc. that add to the price and often affect availability.

I'm not being silly at all...I honestly answered what I thought you were asking.

:confused:

Then they should make the towers AIO (okay, that was being silly) if you think they're so worried about the pairing image thing. You think Apple believes every G5 tower they sell is paired with an Apple LCD? Just from looking at the pics of members' set-ups, both here and .org (and macnn.com and other forums), I see PLENTY of G5s plugged into "beige CRTs" or third-party LCDs.

:confused:

What's the difference: the high-end pro stuff is allowed to mix with other displays, but a mid-range model isn't? What are you talking about? Where's that line, and who decides it? I'd wager that MORE Apple LCDs would be sold if a headless mid-range unit was available because now someone can get into a nice G5-based Mac for $1099 or thereabouts (instead of $1999) and actually have some money left over to GET a cool Apple display (especially if a nice wide 17" was offered for around $600-700). That's just true. You can't tell me that getting a nice G5 Mac AND a gorgeous Apple display (if you CHOOSE to) for less than $2,000 isn't an attractive proposition. Or the Mac only, if you're already set on the display end?

Remember, you can't get into a new G5 and Apple LCD for less than $3300...entry-level G5 + 20" Cinema Display. How much sense does THAT make? How many people is that shutting out from the game. $2,000 > $3,300 = fairly significant chunk to most people.

:(

I can't make it any clearer that the AIO already exists (and is really nice and affordable), but we're in a different price-range/user level now, and in all the forums I've read, articles I've seen posted, wish lists by fellow Mac users, etc. the ONE thing I see, over and over and over, is a headless, mid-range solution.

Are all those people just wrong, and nuts? Does Apple, to some degree, have a responsibility to listen to its customers a little?

All I'm saying is if Apple comes out with a new G5-based AIO - which they probably will - and it has initial spark, but ends up fading quickly and still not selling like Apple hoped, I'm going to be really hard-pressed to not stand here and smirk a bit and go "hey, I tried to say something...but nooooooo".

:D

We'll see.

[g4tom]

Get rid of the base! Build everything right into the back of the LCD. Make it an inch thicker and keep it looking the same as the monitor line. Just with a wireless keyboard and mouse added. Apple could even build the speakers right in also. An all-in-one LCD "New iMac". That would be too cool. :cool:

[pscates2.0]

But Jobs himself, during the iMac G4 introduction, said that they considered designs like that, but they weren't that elegant AND that there was a performance hit suffered because optical drives - when mounted vertically - tend to not run at their highest speeds.

I remember him specifically bemoaning the whole "guts glommed onto the back" approach to this, to where you had an LCD that couldn't really be thin and sleek AND vertically-mounted drives resulting in performance losses.

"Let each element be true to itself...drives want to be horizontal, the display thin...", or words to that effect. I'm very close to what it said.

2.5 years later, I'd be curious to see him go back on all that and try to say/spin it another way.

:)

"Two years ago, I was wrong when I said what I said. Today, we're proud to glom the guts onto the back of the LCD...it's really amazing, and I think it's one of the best things we've ever done. The new iMac...I'd like to show it to you now..."

:D

[Luca]

No, regardless of what he said back then, the iMac won't turn into a thick LCD. It's the easiest, simplest, and least elegant solution to the problem. And it's not original at all. I think Apple might come up with something at least somewhat interesting and original.

[pscates2.0]

Not sure who you're talking to, Luca (me or g4tom), but I agree. I don't think they COULD go with that design, now that Steve made a big thing of it at the iMac G4 intro. People would hassle him about it constantly: "but you said...".

:)

I expect something a bit more clever and "holy shit, I NEVER considered that!!!" from Apple, if they stick with an AIO.

[austin]

I think y'all are on the right track with the pizza box... it doesn't have to look good on my desk, it has to look good UNDER MY TV (or new 30" LCD) as thats where my next mac is going. (even thought about ripping the monitor out of my imac DV...)

Why not some sort of HT/Tivo enabled mac for the living room? pull up a little table and a wireless keyboard and your rad home theatre becomes a rad workstation? 2 for 1 makes that 3200 bucks for the 30" a little more paletable...

hell, even the 20" can show 720P HD....

[Red]

One of the Biggest overlooked markets is the business desktop model.
I admin 25 6 year old slot load iMacs all running X pretty good.
I also admin 20 or so PC in that 6 years 2 PC computers per plus a handfull of monitors.
iMacs just don't fill the bill on the price point.
eMacs are perfect. I say this because I can put a screaming Bussiness machines with combo drives 17 monitors and all of the iapps to share photos (the graphics dept. uses this to deploy images) and music (our business is in the arts and our season music can be shared without having many copies of cds being purchased) and the ultimate ease of admin (maybe 1/2 hour total a month of all 25 and half of that is user error). All with a power cord and ether. So I want the iMac to market this area.
Would love to see the faces of the PC users when half the company has a new iMac on there desk. But I doubt the iMac is going to beat the $799 eMac.

[BRussell]

I just want to say, despite all the headless talk (myself included), I think we should note the obvious: There was no new 17" Apple display. This just screams out that the iMac will not be headless.

[pscates2.0]

Not so fast there, B. ;)

We can't know that for sure. To me, it just means that MAYBE there is indeed a 17", but perhaps in a different, more iStuff styling, intended to mate with a new headless thing? Maybe slightly lowered specs and lacking FireWire ports (just thinking of two instant ways to shave money off the thing), but sharing the basic design of the new Cinema Displays?

A far-off shot, I'll admit. But not TOTALLY out of the realm of possibility (how do we know they don't have a 17" AND a 20" in this slightly different styling, waiting to be announced, along with the iMac?).

I sure do find it tough to imagine that Apple wouldn't have a display for less than $1299 (no, I don't count that old style 17", because I don't think they're making them and when they're gone, they're gone). THAT might be the reason it's still showing up - clashing design and all - alongside the other three at the Apple store...a bit of a temporary placeholder/stopgap? In any case, it sure looks weird sitting next to the others.

Then again, there's always my scenario: a 17" DOES exist, in aluminum (just like the other three...see my sig!), but is waiting to go with an aluminum headless unit. Maybe they just held that one back, since it would be the one bundled with the new model? For maximum impact, that one gets rolled out at the same time as the new computer, so, psychologically they're paired together and it just makes for a more attractive set-up as they're introduced. A little something extra Jobs can unveil too?

If that's the case, when that happens, Apple sticks it on the online store in the spot currently occupied by the old-style 17" (so it's available, in standalone form, to G5 tower and PowerBook users). And the old-style 17" immediately goes into the red-tag blowout section, discounted, say, $100 or so?

Eveyone happy: four displays to meet everyone's needs, a new headless mid-range Mac that everyone's begged for AND nicely discounted previous-gen 17" for those wanting something for their Quicksilver or MDD G4s for around $500 or so.

All speculation, no doubt...but I'm in the right forum for it, so it's okay.

:)

[BRussell]

Anything is possible. I just like to state the obvious. It comforts me somehow.

The idea of a headless iMac that fits integrates with the stand-alone displays just makes so much sense. It would be innovative. It would please the entry-level people who want a cheap way to get a Mac. It would please the all-in-one people. It just makes sense.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean our friends in RDF land will do it.

[pscates2.0]

I know...makes HUGE sense, doesn't it, the more one thinks about it (for the exact reasons you state).

For the past 4-5 days, that's all I've imagined for a new mid-range model. I've dreamed up designs in my head, I've imagined how tight and compact it could be. I imagine how easy it would be for anyone to go buy, how newbies and switchers would perk up and investigate it, how current Mac users would praise it up and down, how Apple display sales would skyrocket, how my Dad would probably take the plunge and switch to the Mac finally, how we could update our Sawtooth G4s at work, etc.

And that's why it's going to be such a heartbreak when Apple rolls out a new, expensive AIO to replace, uh...the current expensive AIO.

:D Wait, why am I laughing...

:mad: There...

[Markis]

I think you're all off. Laptops are bigger sellers so they will do something like a modified laptop with a wireless keyboard and mouse. The screen and computer will be one unit so you can detach it from the stand and use it to control other "hub" appliances. The new iMac will basically be like a Tablet PC but done right.

[pscates2.0]

Oh, WE'RE off? :lol:

[DMBand0026]

Oh, WE'RE off? :lol:

Yeah, seriously. I can't find the little smiley dude that indicates "crazy"...but we all know what it looks like.

Insert aforementioned smiley here.

[InactionMan]

http://members.rogers.com/inactionman/ai/screwy.gif

Is this what you're looking for? :p

[pscates2.0]

Yeah. I think anyone expecting a modular detachable tablet kinda thing is in for disappointment.

Of course, now that I've said that, it'll come to be. :p

[Messiahtosh]

www.macsimumperspective.com

[pscates2.0]

When did Eric Roberts start writing about Macs and tech? :lol:

[Messiahtosh]

When did Eric Roberts start writing about Macs and tech? :lol:That guy is way off base.

[DMBand0026]

That guy is way off base.

Yeah, seriously...wireless displays, no G5, headless, alu. enclosure. This guy is off http://members.rogers.com/inactionman/ai/screwy.gif

[g4tom]

Well, you guys are right about some things. The desktop is going by the way of the floppy. I could not even imagine owning one. Laptops are the way to go, in my opinion. The new iMac will need to be more portable. Headless dose not ooze cool. It will need to be an AIO LCD or a tablet type new designed laptop type thingy.

[thegelding]

can't quite agree...maybe i am just too old, but i still view a true laptop as a "second" computer...

for these reasons:

cost more...
smaller screen...
easily stolen...

and most important...
shorter livespan

all my computers last me at least 5 to 7 years
never will get that from a laptop


g

[g4tom]

Desktops, chain you to a desk. Plain and simple. Make it more portable, a family appliance you can share. All wireless except for the power cord. Either dockable or something new that I can't even imagine yet. Make it WOW you. Desktops scream out buisiness tool, work, job. Make the new iMac scream out FUN, entertainment, passtime. Make it look nothing like work!

[Messiahtosh]

The iMac G5 should come in precisely 3 models.

Basic iMac G5 geared towards the iPod using crowd=$499

•Headless
•1.6 GHz G5 processor
•512 MB RAM
•CDRW/DVD
•60 GB HD
•Whatever relatively decent GPX card.
•Small form with wireless tech built in (Bluetooth) and Airport
------------

Mid Range iMac G5 geared toward the iLife users=$699

•Headless
•1.8 GHz G5 processor
•512 MB RAM
•Superdrive
•80 GB HD
•Same graphics card as the basic model (with optional upgrades)
•Built in bluetooth and Airport standard
-----------

Prosumer iMac G5 geared towards the power for less price crowd=$899

•Headless
•2 GHz G5
•512 MB RAM
•Superdrive
•80 GB HD (upgrade to 120 or 160)
•Nice graphics card
•Built in bluetooth standard Airport
--------

All headless, all upgradeable graphics, all airport standard. It covers all the bases! If Apple could unveil a $499 15'' LCD and a $699 17'' LCD in the new form factors, they would have huge winners on their hands.

This would draw in the iPod owner crowd who have an iPod and don't want to spend sickly amounts on a new computer, but it would be the ultimate iPod companion. Streaming music, iTunes management, great design, hooks up with any monitor (even old ones).

You have one middle model that does all of the iLife stuff perfectly! Not as strong on gaming, but still acceptable, and a bit faster than the low end.

The highest end model would do everything you needed it to do, right out of the box. The LCD's would be obviously good companions, but at least Apple could now offer a great buy at a low price, without locking down the user to an LCD.


***I know you will all say I'm nuts for saying Apple can sell a 500 dollar computer when it sells the iPod for that much...but the iPod costs that much due to miniaturization.

[Dave Hagan]

"What would you like in the iMac G5's?"

NOT THIS! (***WARNING - THESE IMAGES ARE DISTURBING***)



http://homepage.mac.com/davehagan/dell2.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/davehagan/dell3.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/davehagan/dell4.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/davehagan/dell1.jpg

Apple cannot do any worse than Dell's Optiplex SX270 and SX280.

Those things are f*$&ing ugly!!!!!!!! Sadly they are not all in ones...those "pizza boxes" detach and become a stand alone mini-desktop thingy.

[Barto]

Sir! We've just spotted it!

Spotted what?

The Uglymatron!™

[MacUsers]

It's an ugly LCD with an ugly backpack.

[Markis]

Anyone who is looking for a headless iMac is in for a disappointment. Macs will always be all in one systems like the original. If you're looking for a headless system, it would be a Cube replacement. If you look at the guts of all the iMacs, they are basically just a laptop. iBooks are fairly cheap now and I don't see any reason why they couldn't make an iMac the size of an iBook, so I don't believe in the speculation of having a wireless screen and a base station. From the rumors, they say that the iMac will be attached to the back of the LCD. This leads me to believe that they'll make the system more portable around the house so obvious wireless is the best route.

I think Apple intended to make the last iMac revision to have the ability to be a tablet because of the way the screen could get so close to the table top with the combination of inkwell, but prices for this technology didn't come down fast enough. Apple also announced that they working on solutions for controlling AirTunes, so it makes sense that they would do this with the new iMac. I also see the new iMac having a docking system similar to an iPod so it can recharge and connect to external peripherals easily. This would be a more mobile system for the home, but not intended to necessarily go on the road with like a laptop. The iMacs probably won't be G5s because of the problems with cooling right now, so the new iMacs are going to have to have some WOW factor other than the faster chip.

[stangmatt66]

I know a lot of people want the iMac G5 to have a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, however this is not possible. Bluetooth only runs once the OS is loaded making it impossible to zap PRAM, eject a CD, etc while the computer is booting. This is the same reason why you can't BTO a PowerMac with bluetooth keyboard and mouse without getting the standard keyboard and mouse as well. Maybe Apple will come up with a workaround for this?

[ulothrix]

...a headless system, it would be a Cube replacement

The issue with Cube was the price. I'd have one instead of an iMac CRT if it wasn't for the original cost.

In all other respects, a headless iMac would be a $600 CPU with a $600 LCD. The form factor is of little consequence so long as it is below the $1200 price point ... and your LCD can travel with you to the next iMac revision saving you $.

[g4tom]

Where to start..... zapping the P RAM, if the wireless keyboard can't do that just boot from the CD and use a utility do do it for you. Headless???? That doesn't even sound good, sounds like a major step backwards. What killed the cube, I know what I didn't like about them, wires wires and more wires. They were terrible to set up and hide all the wires. As for the pictures of the ugly dell, well it's an ugly dell. If Apple made an LCD AIO it would, in my mind look more like a tablet, a slightly bulky iBook not ment to be a true laptop to go town with you, but a dockable move around the housable home internet intertainment appliance. The dock may have a wire or two, but the iMac would not have any wires and may not need a keyboard with it at all times.

[stoo]

Are there any pictures of the Dell in briefcase mode?

Desktops, chain you to a desk. Plain and simple.

Laptop too noisy when rendering a DVD? Unplug it and move it somewhere else. :)

[ATS]

Headless G5 iMac w/DVI output.

This makes good business sense.

In a corporate environment, the emphasis on cost is huge. Never mind that a Mac has a lower total cost of ownership over its lifespan than a PC, or the additional cost of a PC in lost productivity due to various sorts of malware. When the time comes to write a check for 200 new computers, the $150 price difference between an eMac and a low-end PC will be the only figure that the execs ever look at. It doesn't make sense, but that's what happens.

A headless iMac would build market share in the computer-using public and help prevent market erosion in the corporate sector. Apple hears this a lot from its reps in the field, and it may be the single most popular request from Apple customers at all levels. Try striking up a conversation about it with the next Apple rep you see at a trade show.

The G5 chip makes sense because it would help to broaden the market for the chip, lowering G5 prices and keeping IBM motivated to improve the product. The question isn't whether or not Apple should make G5 iMacs, but how much longer they can afford to charge as much as they do on the current G4 units and continue to feed the perception that the machines are underpowered for their price. But only one chip per machine; dual CPUs are for Pro boxes.

A DVI output means Apple can sell you one of their new monitors at the same time, and DVI also gives better image quality on LCDs than analog VGA connectors. As a bonus, DVI is the designated standard for next-gen TV sets. Digital hub, anyone?

None of these features is particularly challenging from an engineering standpoint or especially costly to implement. There is no technical reason this couldn't happen. Apple has hesitated to come out with headless machines because the profit margins would be lower than all-in-one machines and the headless boxes might cannibalize some sales of higher-end CPUs.

So the real question is: has Apple finally come around to the point where thay're willing to risk cannibalizing sales and accept lower profit margins for a potentially significant gain in market share?

[dfiler]

I know a lot of people want the iMac G5 to have a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, however this is not possible. Bluetooth only runs once the OS is loaded making it impossible to zap PRAM, eject a CD, etc while the computer is booting. This is the same reason why you can't BTO a PowerMac with bluetooth keyboard and mouse without getting the standard keyboard and mouse as well. Maybe Apple will come up with a workaround for this?They already have. The newest macs have bluetooth keyboard and mouse support much earlier in the boot process. Anyone recall exactly when (and on which model) this functionality was introduced?

[g4tom]

Well I was a Rep in the field, for 5 years I worked for Apple. The only thing I heard over and over and over again, was always the same, and it was.... I want a Mac, my husband wants the Mac, but our kids school only uses peecees. Its true, if Apple got back in the clasrooms sales would skyrocket! Then you could go the next step and get into to corporate customers.

[DMBand0026]

I think Apple is already making a valiant attempt to get back into schools with the iBooks and eMacs. They cut deals with districts who will often give nearly every child in the district a brand new iBook for them to use through a good part of their schooling. And the eMacs are now available for dirt cheap if the district opts for the no optical drive model.

[g4tom]

Back to what I want to see in the new iMac. If and I say if, it were to be a small form factor tower, keep the price down to the 400-500 range 500 for the high end. CPU at low end 1.5ghz G4, high end 2.0ghz G4. HD should be no less than 80gigs, if they have to go cheap keep at least 256 of RAM and 64 of Video RAM, 512 and 128 in that price range would be possible and better keeping up to the times. Make sure it has both firewire 400 and 800 and USB 2.0 and a wireless KB and mouse are a must. They won't put a G5 in an iMac until after it comes out in a Powerbook.

[Ryan]

I think Apple is already making a valiant attempt to get back into schools with the iBooks and eMacs. They cut deals with districts who will often give nearly every child in the district a brand new iBook for them to use through a good part of their schooling. And the eMacs are now available for dirt cheap if the district opts for the no optical drive model.
I don't think Apple offers an eMac sans optical drive.

[Quagmire]

I don't think Apple offers an eMac sans optical drive.

Yes, they do offer emacs with no optical drive. Go to the apple store. Go click on education and click shop for your school. Enter the school you choose and click emac. It will show you a $600 dollar emac with no optical drive and a cd rom drive for $649.

[Commodus]

It isn't going to be a G4. You don't do a radical redesign that uses one processor in the first revision, and then a totally different processor in the second. That's just wasting manufacturing and R&D costs, not to mention guaranteeing that you'll underwhelm your audience.

Not to mention that your idea for a tower would simply cost far too much. If an eMac with a 1.25 GHz G4 costs $799, what makes you think that Apple could have a $400-500 1.5 GHz system? The CRT in the eMac doesn't cost all that much (maybe $100).

Here's what I'd like to see in the base iMac G5:

* 1.6 GHz G5
* 256 MB of RAM
* 80 GB hard drive
* 64 MB GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
* Combo drive
* $999 (hopefully with a 15" display, or headless)

Then a higher-end model:

* 1.8 or 2 GHz G5
* 256 MB of RAM
* 80 GB hard drive
* 64 MB GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
* Superdrive
* $1299 (17" display if an AIO, might have more system/video memory otherwise)

If it's internally upgradeable, both models could be given the option of a faster video card (such as the Radeon 9600 XT), though I suspect that any two-slot cards would be ruled out.

[g4tom]

I'll bet the farm on it, they won't put a G5 in a low end machine before it goes in a Powerbook. It just won't happen. They may come out with a new really cool design, but it won't be a G5. As for the eMac at 799 it wholesales to the stores for 640, Apple makes 200+ on each unit. Knock out the CRT and lower your profit. More smaller amounts equal larger grand total. Make it 4-500$, the peecee dweebs can, so can we.

[Quagmire]

I'll bet the farm on it, they won't put a G5 in a low end machine before it goes in a Powerbook. It just won't happen. They may come out with a new really cool design, but it won't be a G5. As for the eMac at 799 it wholesales to the stores for 640, Apple makes 200+ on each unit. Knock out the CRT and lower your profit. More smaller amounts equal larger grand total. Make it 4-500$, the peecee dweebs can, so can we.

If the imac was going to be a G4 then why are they having problems with it? Who can agree with me that we are sick of hearing the powerbook will get G5 first. A computer will get the next generation processor when the computer can handle it. The powerbook can't handle the G5 at this moment. Most likely the imac can handle the G5 right now but, they ran into a small setback.

[Robo]

I agree with Undertaker. Besides, it's not like it'll be years before the PBG5 comes out - I strongly suspect a January Macworld unveiling.

I'm suprised that Apple is updating the iMac so soon, but I can understand their desire to have the G5 in more of their computers, especially with Tiger coming out.

And like Undertaker said, why they would delay the iMac and all, just to put another G4 in. They said it'd be "all-new." That suggests more than just a cosmetic upgrade...

Sorry, g4tom, but you might just lose the farm... ;)

[Xaqtly]

Undertaker, you're 100% correct. Why in the hell would the iMac be delayed, for any reason, if they were going to put a G4 in it? G4s are plentiful and available, and it probably wouldn't even require a logic board redesign. It's been almost 11 months since the iMac had an upgrade, and faster G4 chips have been available for quite a while now. The iMac will definitely be getting a G5 before the Powerbook does. g4tom, you're gonna lose that farm. :lol:

[Quagmire]

I'm suprised that Apple is updating the iMac so soon, but I can understand their desire to have the G5 in more of their computers, especially with Tiger coming out.


Why are you surprised that apple is updating the imac? The imac very similar to the pmac wasn't updated for a whole year. You can say that the 20" display was an update. But, most of us can agree that the 20" was only a new model in the line. That didn't give us any faster G4s.

[stoo]

How about Exciting New G4, with a Snappy™ new bus?

[Quagmire]

How about Exciting New G4, with a Snappy™ new bus?

I doubt it apple will put a G4 in the imac after this delay. Unless it is the e600 from freescale and since it is a new processor from a different company they are having problems. But, as I said I doubt it. The imac will be G5. I am almost 98% sure.(you have to have some room for doubt) The speeds could be 1.6 and 1.8. Remember .com posted sub 2.0 Ghz. That means no 2 Ghz speed. But, .com can be wrong and most likely is. I am more intrested in pricing and the design.

EDIT: I want the slot drive to return. It is so more cooler then tray.

[Ryan]

I don't think we'll see 1.8. That's getting too much into PM territory. At most 1.6. Maybe we'll see something like 1.25 and 1.5.

[Commodus]

It won't be 1.25 or 1.5. The former just isn't a realistic option at all - they need relatively easily divisible bus speeds, and a 1.25 GHz G5 might actually be slower outside of heavy G5 optimization. 1.5 just wouldn't have the necessary oomph, plus we know that 1.6 GHz should easily fit within the cost and heat requirements Apple would need.

I don't expect higher than 1.6, but I don't expect lower either.

[Quagmire]

I don't think we'll see 1.8. That's getting too much into PM territory. At most 1.6. Maybe we'll see something like 1.25 and 1.5.

If the Pmac 1.8 was still single I will agree that we will not see a 1.8 Ghz G5 imac. But, it is not the case. The Pmac 1.8 Ghz is a dual and you should know that. So having a single 1.8 Ghz G5 in the imac will do no harm in the low end Pmac sales.

EDIT: At 1.25 and 1.5 Ghz, it might as well be a G4 instead of a G5.

[Ryan]

If the Pmac 1.8 was still single I will agree that we will not see a 1.8 Ghz G5 imac. But, it is not the case. The Pmac 1.8 Ghz is a dual and you should know that. So having a single 1.8 Ghz G5 in the imac will do no harm in the low end Pmac sales.

EDIT: At 1.25 and 1.5 Ghz, it might as well be a G4 instead of a G5.

Yes, I do know that the 1.8 G5 is dual.

I also know that Apple had this problem a few years ago with the PM's, when the top-of-the-line was a dual 533, and right below it was a single 733.

Now, it is different here, as it would be between different product lines. I agree with you on that part.

[Messiahtosh]

I bet it will be a 1.8 GHz G5.

[pscates2.0]

I really, really hate to say this, but I must: taking into account Apple, our tendency to over estimate or "wish too high", our very firm ideas about some things, etc. I can't help but think that we're going to be possibly quite underwhelmed at the new iMac (or whatever it is).

Think about it.

If it's an AIO, they've just cheesed off a bunch of people, and dropped a golden opportunity to do what I and many others have imagined the mid-range could do/be.

If they go with a "headless" design, they're going to catch flack from many here and in the Mac press who won't be able to reconcile the fact that a) things change, b) the eMac represents what the old iMac was even better than the current one and c) people in that mid-range ("prosumer", I guess, is the word?) aren't opposed to having to connect a display to a box, especially when Apple makes it as easy and idiot-proof as they do. But they'll still post here to complain and write editorials in all the Mac mags to ding Apple for "losing sight of the iMac's original purpose and appeal".

Want more? I can do this all day... ;)

The chip. We all expect a G5 (I do too). But it seems like every time Apple has released a product with a G5 in it (two tower versions and an Xserve), it NEVER ships immediately and in sort of reliable, "go get it today if you want one" quantity. Despite all this stuff about "announced and available in September" do any of you actually believe that? It might be ANNOUNCED in September, but if any of you actually have one on your desk before Halloween, I'll be totally shocked.

Price. Everytime we work ourselves into a frenzy over Apple and how their rumored new thing is going to actually be somewhat cheap and affordable to most people, it NEVER pans out. Right or wrong, we were all hopped-up over the notion of $99-149 iPod minis, a $999 new 20" Cinema Display. Hell, the G5s have gone UP. Now, granted, the AirPort Extreme Base Station and the PowerBooks are two things that have gone DOWN in price...but honestly, they've only gone down to where most rational people believe they should've been to START with! Plus, it was out-of-the-blue anyway, so it's nothing we were expecting or counting on like we were with the iPod mini and new, more affordable displays. We didn't know - at the time - the displays would be so righteous, and we just assumed they'd all drop $300 or so.

Lastly, we do this at least two times a year. We build up, we expect great things (some of us are even quite good at expecting the impossible, and being serious about it ;) ) and every time, without fail, what Apple releases - while cool, groundbreaking and better than anything else out there - there's always SOMETHING about it that deadens the joy just a bit: the pricing, the availability, the "why didn't they put a [fill in the blank] on it?!?".

:)

We've all got this headless 1.8-2.0GHz G5 for $899 pictured in our heads, when we know damn good and well that it will be - most likely - a 1.6GHz G5 (crippled, no doubt, in some meaningful way), a lamer-than-not graphics card (yes, totally fine for most people and their needs, but probably still not gaming-friendly or as robust as many would like), and AIO that won't cost less than $1499 and won't be available in any sort of reasonable quantity by late October or November.

:\

And Apple's position, officially or otherwise, will be "well, the eMac covers the low $1,000 and under ground...". And they're right, which is what I've said forever...most agree. However, they will have failed to follow through on the other side and STILL insist on locking that mid-range/prosumer market into a somewhat less-than-practical or desired AIO (listening to your customers can't always be a bad thing). I'm afraid, after the initial buzz and excitement wore off (just as in the iMac G4), we'll all be back here in 6-12 months, bitching about what an overpriced rip-off they've foisted on us (again) and there will be so many fed up at the complete inability to get into a powerful Mac - with a display size/brand/model of their choice - for anywhere between $1,000-2,000.

I just think this is so true, and such a destined-to-be scenario. How can it not, at this point?

I'm not being a pessimist or a brat. I'm just taking into account the previous several years, human nature, Apple themselves, etc. and cobbling together what I consider a very practical, realistic outlook on the impending new iMac unveiling.

Pooh-pooh me all you want, but when Paris rolls around and most of what I say above pans out, don't say I didn't already kinda expect it and have it fairly well pegged! In fact, I'd put good money on my prediction...

;)

Again, not WISHING bad things or being a crab about it (I WANT this to be the powerful, affordable thing we all want it to), but I just don't know, guys...this might be the most anticipated product Apple's ever produced (what with the sorry state of sunflower iMac G4, the first-time-ever Apple admission of they screwed up and have none for sale for two months, the idea that AIOs for the $1,000-2,000 market might not be the best approach, etc.), and with that anticipation and specific yearnings comes almost inevitable disappointment and un-met expectations. Nothing will surprise me, at this point, either way. I hope for the best, because that particular product - the iMac - represents all that is Apple...I truly believe that. It deserves to be as mind-blowing as the Bondi blue model was six years ago, and needs to fly off the shelves again in numbers not seen since 1998/1999/2000.

:o

Gonna be interesting to see, that's for sure...

[Quagmire]

In the back of my head yes there is doubt that the new imac will be a G5. But, with all the signs that are happening. The G4 imac not available, ts report that they are producing the imac G5 back in June, and the 15 minute ending early of the keynote at WWDC. I am certain that 15 minutes was reserved for the imac. But, they did run into a small problem(most likely heat or a bad mobo). If they did show the new imac at WWDC most likely they wouldn't waste their time with displaying a 1.5 Ghz G4 imac. It would of been a G5 in the imac. But, as I said before there is doubt do to apples history. But, it isn't apple history to announce when the new product is going to be announced.

[Messiahtosh]

pscates, I think we may be in for a wonderful surprise.

[oldmacfan]

It deserves to be as mind-blowing as the Bondi blue model was six years ago, and needs to fly off the shelves again in numbers not seen since 1998/1999/2000.

:o

Gonna be interesting to see, that's for sure...

I Agree with this, but I would change
"deserves" to "has to be".

[pscates2.0]

Chris, I don't know. I think it might be a bit unwise to expect both ends of the spectrum (high power AND low price). I really don't expect to see a G5-based iMac (AIO or otherwise) hovering in the 1.6-2.0GHz range for anything less than the mid-$1,000's (and my idea in that other thread is going to suddenly look REALLY good to many...).

;)

I think one of two scenarios are most likely:

They'll have a 1.6GHz or so model, appropriately crippled and outfitted with a less than stellar graphics card and it'll still be $1399 AT LEAST. OR, they'll go all out (claiming 20th anniversary reasoning and all) and do indeed release a 2.0GHz G5 model, with all ass-kicking specs and features...and it'll be $2,199 or thereabouts.

:D

Tell you what...it'll be a "wonderful surprise" IF the above doesn't happen.

:(

I'm telling you (and others) two months out: any notions of a sub-$1,000 G5-based iMac (headless or AIO) at 1.8-2.0GHz (without some SERIOUS compromises or caveats introduced into the mix) best be removed from your mind, for your own happiness and sanity.

They went UP in price on the G5s. I think, in true Apple fashion, they'll probably go UP in price on a new iMac (again, reasoning that the eMac covers the student/newbie/budget crowd...yet conviently forgetting about this whole $1,000-1,500 mark I think is really important). I think they'll position the new iMac at some semi-ridiculous and unattractive price, which MIGHT - at least temporarily - be offset by its newness and cool, whiz-bang looks.

Whatever the case, you KNOW they ain't gonna be all ramped up and easily available upon introduction. Why would Apple break such a grand tradition?

:lol:

[Commodus]

Whether or not it's headless, I do believe that a price reduction will be the ultimate goal - and an achievable one at that.

Consider this: a PowerMac 1.6 is selling for $1599 right now. So, starting from there, Apple does the following:

* use 970FX chips (more chips per wafer should mean lower costs)
* take out all unneeded interfaces, such as FW800, PCI-X, and optical audio in/out
* produce a less expensive enclosure (they don't need a 600W power supply, for starters)
* reduce profit margins (as they've always done with the e/i lineup)

That could easily whittle the price down to at least current iMac territory, if not $999. I don't know if a 15" LCD would still be feasible at $999, but it would go a long way towards helping Apple's margins if it was. Heck, even at $1299 it would still be much more feasible than the current iMac is.

[hmurchison]

Whether or not it's headless, I do believe that a price reduction will be the ultimate goal - and an achievable one at that.

Consider this: a PowerMac 1.6 is selling for $1599 right now. So, starting from there, Apple does the following:

* use 970FX chips (more chips per wafer should mean lower costs)
* take out all unneeded interfaces, such as FW800, PCI-X, and optical audio in/out
* produce a less expensive enclosure (they don't need a 600W power supply, for starters)
* reduce profit margins (as they've always done with the e/i lineup)

That could easily whittle the price down to at least current iMac territory, if not $999. I don't know if a 15" LCD would still be feasible at $999, but it would go a long way towards helping Apple's margins if it was. Heck, even at $1299 it would still be much more feasible than the current iMac is.


No not the optical I/O. When a $30 DVD has optical you know it's cheap to implement. You can't have a "Digital Hub" if there is no way to get "Digital" in an out.

[pscates2.0]

Good point. Some of those things are going to have to make their way to the non-G5 stuff, if the whole "digital hub" thing needs to continue ringing true.

I wonder - and I don't know this kind of stuff, so someone chime in - what would be the absolutely lowest you could get a headless G5-based box down to, including all the I/O typically found on the iMac AND a good 64MB graphics card from ATi or whoever.

Not trying to reinvent the wheel or make a specific point here...just genuinely curious (I don't know how much things cost) how much a little pizza box thing COULD be built for, raw parts/components. $500? $1000? Lower? Higher? $350? $750?

I know tons of other stuff factors in, but I'm not concerned with that in this question...

[Commodus]

No not the optical I/O. When a $30 DVD has optical you know it's cheap to implement. You can't have a "Digital Hub" if there is no way to get "Digital" in an out.

Optical audio is used for surround sound primarily, so it's not essential, but if it's cheap enough then they could include it.

Speaking of DVDs - the base model iMac wouldn't need a Superdrive, so that takes another $100 off (if you believe Apple) of the price.

[Robo]

This is a bit off-topic (now) but anyway...

Why are you surprised that apple is updating the imac? The imac very similar to the pmac wasn't updated for a whole year. You can say that the 20" display was an update. But, most of us can agree that the 20" was only a new model in the line. That didn't give us any faster G4s.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm certainly not suprised Apple is updating the iMac (it's needed it for so long), I'm just suprised they're giving it the G5 now. (I mean, the iMac didn't go G4 until a year before the G5 came out, and I doubt we'll see a G6 in 2005.) It does make sense though, with Tiger and all.

(OK, a disclaimer, yes, Apple hasn't quite confirmed the new iMac will have a G5, but realistically, would they redesign it now, only to design another radically different iMacl a year from now?)

One last thought: Like I've said before, I hope they don't decapitate it. Does Apple need a lower-end headless Mac? Definitely - but I don't think it should be the iMac. They could resurrect the Cube (and price it reasonably...maybe) or else make something new, but I think that the iMac should stay AIO. The iMac brought AIO back to Apple (OK, OK, there was that huge G3 AIO that nobody bought, but didn't the iMac predate that anyway?) and made it Apple's trademark in the low-end spectrum. So hopefully they'll make a lower-end headless Mac, and hopefully the iMac will stay AIO. I hope so, anyway.

To be honest, though, I'm kinda worried about the new iMac - yes, it'll perform better, but I think the current design is perfect. And Apple isn't keeping the current iMac around on sale after the new one is unveiled or anything. What if I don't like the G5 one? :confused:

Waiting is hard.

[pscates2.0]

Way to go out on a limb in that sig, Commodus! ;) :p

[moazam]

We've all got this headless 1.8-2.0GHz G5 for $899 pictured in our heads, when we know damn good and well that it will be - most likely - a 1.6GHz G5 (crippled, no doubt, in some meaningful way), a lamer-than-not graphics card (yes, totally fine for most people and their needs, but probably still not gaming-friendly or as robust as many would like), and AIO that won't cost less than $1499 and won't be available in any sort of reasonable quantity by late October or November.

:\


Yuhp, I'm totally with pscates on this one. Well, 'cept the availability date...I think the machine will either be instantly available upon introduction, or available with 2 weeks.

-M

[DMBand0026]

Yuhp, I'm totally with pscates on this one. Well, 'cept the availability date...I think the machine will either be instantly available upon introduction, or available with 2 weeks.

-M

As much as I'd like to agree with you on the availability date, I know pscates is right. I've seen it happen with Apple too many times, especially recently. So I'll keep my fingers crossed that Apple pulls their heads out of their butts and gets this thing ready for volume shipping as soon as they announce it, but I doubt it.

[InactionMan]

They'll probably have the low-end iMac shipping either immediately or within two weeks and the high(er)-end shipping in "Mid-October"

As far as price goes these machines have to be either lower than the current iMacs or at least as maintain the current price point. Keeping my fingers crossed for the low-end to be in the $999-1099 range.

[Dave Hagan]

These new iMacs need to be priced on the low-side in order to gain any favor. If they still remain or increase from the price points they sat at before being discontinued, it will not go over well with investors, and more importantly, the general public. It will go nowhere to gain a foothood for increasing marketshare.

[pscates2.0]

Yeah, no kidding! That's my whole, sad point... :(

[pgennai]

Although I quickly dismissed most of the rumours going around relating to a detachable (wireless) monitor on the new iMac, the idea is actually starting to sound more and more reasonable. If we don't consider price for a moment (yeah, I know... not a wise move), there are many signs in the current MacOSX and related software that points to such a product.

Firstly, the InkWell technology built into MacOSX is hardly being used at the moment, and I doubt that Apple would spend money developing software that is never actually made use of by a product (although, apparently most of the code was directly carried across from the Newton). A detachable (tablet) display on the new iMac that can be carried around your house and used with a stylus interface would be very cool. Although it could never be used for word-processing and the like, it would be great for basic web-browsing and other software with basic interfaces.

Secondly, the new AirPort Express with its AirTunes technology allows you to stream music from your Mac to the various hifi systems located around your house. But to be honest, what use is this technology if you have to run back to your Mac in some other room whenever you need to change the song or playlist? If Apple did put a wireless screen on the new iMac, the tablet could be carried into the room where the music is being played and act as an interface to the jukebox. Don't know about you guys, but it sounds pretty cool to me.

Sure, the price of such a system would be high, but it would be something truly different, and certainly worth buying. The technology to do all of this is all already here... just waiting for a company like Apple to to have the confidence to implement it. Here's hoping...

[wtd]

I wonder, since it just crossed my mind, has anyone else suspected that perhaps the delay is to accomodate a major purchase of the new machines?

They don't want what happened with the PowerMac and Virginia Tech to happen again, where they announce them, and say they'll ship, but can't ship them because the existing supply is already being diverted to one or two high volume buyers. Such an arrangement with an educational institution could explain why Apple is seemingly willing to announce these new machines too late for the back-to-school rush.

Oh, and what I want in a new iMac:

If it's headless, I'd like to see a uniform processor choice across the line (say 1.8GHz G5), with a great deal of BTO customizability. No more problems where everyone's buying one model, and Apple gets stuck with warehouses full of computers that won't sell.

Have the base be a 1.8GHz G5 (perhaps a 1.6GHz option for large volume buyers who don't need the power) with 256MB of RAM. Everything else is BTO. Offer popular (based on observations of sales) configurations at reduced prices, but don't build masses of them in advance and then hope they sell. Update these configurations on a regular basis (every 2 - 4 weeks).

As others have noted, customers shouldn't be forced to pay for a SuperDrive if they just want the highest-end video card (speaking of which, include a dual-head DVI card to appeal to pros ho want to use multiple monitors).

[moazam]

Sure, the price of such a system would be high, but it would be something truly different, and certainly worth buying. The technology to do all of this is all already here... just waiting for a company like Apple to to have the confidence to implement it. Here's hoping...

Don't worry, whatever they release, detached display or not, the price will be high. :)

-M

[DMBand0026]

Excuse my ignorance, but how the heck would they pull off a wireless display? Where do you get the tech for that? What standard would they use? 802.11g? Is there enough bandwidth for that? Power? Where do you get your power from? I think it's a cool idea, but it won't happen, not this time at least.

[Commodus]

Actually, I don't recall putting that Apple Expo Paris thing in my sig - it just ended up there one day and I only just noticed. :p

[pscates2.0]

A likely story. :D ;)

[Commodus]

A likely story. :D ;)
Hey, I still stand by my Apple Expo Paris prediction... I just don't know why it ended up as my sig!

[DMBand0026]

Hey, I still stand by my Apple Expo Paris prediction... I just don't know why it ended up as my sig!

It'll happen at Apple Expo Paris, pretty much no doubt in my mind. They may not (probably won't) ship right away, but they'll be introduced.

Say hello to iMac, again :)

[Spinnetti]

OK then. I want an iGame - a consumer Mac, optimised for games to be simultaneously announced with the surprise release of Half-Life 2 on the Mac.

It will have the iMac floating head screen - 20inch... fuckit, 23inch (yeah baby). And it isn't stiff but smoothy-glidy like the 17incher.

It will have whatever the latest graphics card is (Fire-whatty?).

It will have huge honking great processers... Huh, what? I don't care which ones, as long as they're huge and honking (yeah, honking)... err... and in a silent enclosure. So everything will be suuuuuperfast.

It will be able to do surround sound.

Nach, I can't be bothered to think of all the things I would want in an iMac to make me buy one... But, I contend (gotta love the class connotations of the English language), that hypothetical wish lists can get silly, and get silly pretty quickly.

You might be joking, but as a former Mac owner (8500AV and every version of the Newton), the lack of game power is the only thing preventing my from coming back to the Mac. Since I have to have a top of the line PC to play the best games, why bother to get a Mac for the other stuff? After all, any old computer will do for internet or email - I need top end graphics and CPU for my games (and 3d Cad)

[stangmatt66]

You might be joking, but as a former Mac owner (8500AV and every version of the Newton), the lack of game power is the only thing preventing my from coming back to the Mac. Since I have to have a top of the line PC to play the best games, why bother to get a Mac for the other stuff? After all, any old computer will do for internet or email - I need top end graphics and CPU for my games (and 3d Cad)

How about a Apple gaming console (like M$' Xbox)? The idea was bounced around Apple before M$ annouced the Xbox

[Messiahtosh]

When Steve Jobs introduced the flat panel iMac at the San Francisco MacWorld in January of 2002, he made a lot of claims and statements that will now seem ridiculous if the 3rd generation iMac departs from them in any way. I'm not saying Apple couldnt go against the philosophy of the flat panel iMac but if they do it would surprise me.

Steve said the age of the CRT was officially over, then the eMac was introduced later.

Steve said every element had to be true to itself-fair enough, let's see what happens with generation 3.

Steve said the flat panel design of the iMac had a "beauty and a grace that will last the next decade"---What is he talking about?

Based on that statement, Apple would not really change the form of the iMac until 2012. He could have just meant that any iMac purchased with that design would look in-style for 10 years. I'm not sure exactly what he meant. All I know is that he and Apple (and maybe even Time Magazine) thought that the current iMac would be a smash hit. It was a success, in that it sold well considering the internet boom was over and the economy was sluggish, but it was not the PC switching machine that a lot of people thought it would be.

Apple has some explaining to do with the 3rd generation iMac, they have to reach out to the market instead of make the market backpeddal in the face of a price tag. They have to finally decide whether or not the iMac design just makes the end result be an overpriced computer in a marketplace filled with low cost alternatives.

Here's hoping that Steve, Ive, Phil, and the gang all have something that will indeed last us the next decade. Make it low cost, make it appealing, but don't make it a price shocking commodity item again. Apple needs to make the next iMac a masterpiece in more than just design, it needs to make a wider audience say, "this is for me, I can afford that price and hey, it even looks nice too."

Come on Steve, 2.8% of the market...we're better than that, your company is better than that. Get the world in on this great platform.

[pscates2.0]

Wasn't sure if I needed to start a new thread (didn't wanna get yelled at for doing so, therefore I err on the side of safety)...

Interesting tidbit from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=550) about the new iMac and its heating issues (is indeed a G5-based model, if the report is to be believed).

Also includes the first halfway-useful description of the thing. An interesting read, all the way around.

Sure does sound like it's a design that goes against everything Jobs said in January 2002 though... ("guts glommed onto the back" and drives mounted vertically).

:confused:

This is gonna get interesting...

;)

Also, note the comment in the story about them being like the new Cinema displays...only "thicker". Damn, the new displays are almost 2" thick right now! I know I should have more faith in Ive and the gang, but I'm just picturing this thick, graceless clod of a design, with all the shit piggybacked onto the rear, looking like something Dell or Compaq would lay on us.

:\

I hope either the description is totally wrong OR, if it's right, there's some unthought-of angle to this that will somehow make this a gorgeous, sleek machine, despite how it's sounding!

[LoCash]

How about a Apple gaming console (like M$' Xbox)? The idea was bounced around Apple before M$ annouced the Xbox
Well, there was t he PiPPiN with Bandai way back when. The gaming console market is going to be incredibly tough to break into at this point, and it has already cost Microsoft a massive amount of money to get involved. I wouldn't expect to see Apple break into any new markets unless they actually had something innovative to bring to it.

[moazam]

Also, note the comment in the story about them being like the new Cinema displays...only "thicker". Damn, the new displays are almost 2" thick right now! I know I should have more faith in Ive and the gang, but I'm just picturing this thick, graceless clod of a design, with all the shit piggybacked onto the rear, looking like something Dell or Compaq would lay on us.


It almost sounds like the new machine could be in the style of the Cinema displays, similiar materials and overall L&F, but not necessarily an AIO. To me, it sounds like a Playstation 2 looking device that sits on its side. Monitor would be seperate I think. We'll find out soon enough.

-M

[InactionMan]

Sounds like an Xserve turned on its side and glued to a Cinema Display. Blech.

[Messiahtosh]

It sounds like this thing is going to be awesome, because Apple has found a way to not glom things on the back, or fuck up drive speeds by mounting them vertically.

What Jobs said was wrong with that type of design back in 2002 may no longer be an issue. Bring on a cool looking TAM-like iMac. Hell, I already want two! :p

[stangmatt66]

AppleInsider said weeks ago that they have a rough picture or artist rendering of the new iMac as they describe it, but they won't post it...They probably fear Apple Legal...

[porter]

I hope either the description is totally wrong OR, if it's right, there's some unthought-of angle to this that will somehow make this a gorgeous, sleek machine, despite how it's sounding!

Well, hopefully it is wrong. To me, the article gives me the impression that this time, the iMac gonna be more about technology than beauty. Which I think is a bit dangerous, given Apple's reputation for industrial design. It has to do both very well.

And I hope it's not aluminum and G5-like. That would look too serious for the iMac line up. The bottom line is that it's gotta be the bridge that it is between consumer electronics and computers. And at a resonable price.

BUT... I could care less about the iMac. I'm looking to buy a laptop for my next computer. A G5 laptop... :)

[nowayout11]

Can't say I trust the Insider article... already Apple has made it clear it was the shortage of the processor that was the problem, not the heat. So there goes half the article and credibility of the "well placed" source.

Some people earlier were speculating a headless Mac... I tend to doubt that too. If they did that, they would have to release even more new displays that are smaller and cheaper than the current crop. The cost of the computer on top of a $700-$1300 (or higher) display would be a horrible value proposition, even by Apple's standards.

[Bill M]

I am having a bad week and haven't slept well lately.... that in mind and given the fact that I haven't read all of this thread... do you remember the Apple //c ?

Think... :p

[BuonRotto]

I know I should have more faith in Ive and the gang, but I'm just picturing this thick, graceless clod of a design, with all the shit piggybacked onto the rear, looking like something Dell or Compaq would lay on us.

I'f I had to pick between Ives & Co. and sources, I'd choose the former every time. :D No amount of insider sources or rational thought would dissuade me from thinking that Ives is going to pull out something great. It might appear alien and odd at first, but it turns out to be great. :) It's not that I have more faith, it's that I have more trust.

[DMBand0026]

I'f I had to pick between Ives & Co. and sources, I'd choose the former every time. :D No amount of insider sources or rational thought would dissuade me from thinking that Ives is going to pull out something great. It might appear alien and odd at first, but it turns out to be great. :) It's not that I have more faith, it's that I have more trust.

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one too. I know that Apple won't ship some ugly clod of a box, they've got more sense in their heads than that. And they all know better than we do what Apple is all about, they'll ship an incredible looking machine with great specs, and all you doubters will owe SJ and Co. an apology. ;)

[Messiahtosh]

http://homepage.mac.com/pscates/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-06-09%2022.22.05%20-0700/Image-B1129B19BA9A11D8.jpg

Funny how old this is from pscates, but how relevant it might be now. Could or would Apple do something similar to this design (without that color though)?

[Dave Hagan]

How would these specs be? Too optimistic?

— 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5
— 256 MB RAM
— 80 GB HD
— ATi Radeon 9600 w/64 MB
— Airport Extreme & Bluetooth Built-In
— Slot-loading 8x DVD-R/RW SuperDrive
— 56K Modem
— Mac OS X 10.3.5

[pscates2.0]

http://homepage.mac.com/pscates/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-06-09%2022.22.05%20-0700/Image-B1129B19BA9A11D8.jpg

Funny how old this is from pscates, but how relevant it might be now. Could or would Apple do something similar to this design (without that color though)?

No, because that's an ugly clod of a design, with shit gracelessly piggy-banked onto the back... ;)

[stangmatt66]

How would these specs be? Too optimistic?

— 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5
— 256 MB RAM
— 80 GB HD
— ATi Radeon 9600 w/64 MB
— Airport Extreme & Bluetooth Built-In
— Slot-loading 8x DVD-R/RW SuperDrive
— 56K Modem
— Mac OS X 10.3.5

Sounds perfect to me! I would like to see more base RAM and storage, but we know Apple; less base RAM and storage to save money. Dump the modem and save $26. People still use dialup?

[Quagmire]

How would these specs be? Too optimistic?

— 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5
— 256 MB RAM
— 80 GB HD
— ATi Radeon 9600 w/64 MB
— Airport Extreme & Bluetooth Built-In
— Slot-loading 8x DVD-R/RW SuperDrive
— 56K Modem
— Mac OS X 10.3.5

I doubt all the imac line is going to be the same speed. I say 1.8 Ghz and 2.0 Ghz G5 sounds good to me. they drop the 15" and make the low end 17" 1.8 Ghz the high end 17" and 20" 2.0 Ghz. I would bump the ram to 512 MB but, knowing apple the low end will still be 256. I would make the modem optional. I would say for the low end the Nvidia 5200 64 MB and have the option for the 9600 128 MB. The high end will have the 9600 128 MB standard.

[pscates2.0]

Sounds perfect to me! I would like to see more base RAM and storage, but we know Apple; less base RAM and storage to save money. Dump the modem and save $26. People still use dialup?

Hell yes, people "still use dialup". Plenty. Drop the modem and you're f***ing up a lot of people's ability to get online. Sorry, but that's just true.

Maybe not in five years from now, but we're not quite there yet.

Besides, there are always cases like the one my friend is in: she has DSL at her home, but she's temporarily on Reserve duty in New Orleans, staying in Officer housing on base. There's no broadband, all-over access in places like that (not hers, anyway), so she has to use her iBook G4's modem to get online.

If there were no modems on Macs, she'd spend three months not getting her e-mail or surfing.

:rolleyes:

Bad move. Modem stays. Think anyone gives a damn or worries about $26? Give the cable and DSL stuff another 3-5 years, THEN make that statement.

:)

[Spinnetti]

Well, there was t he PiPPiN with Bandai way back when. The gaming console market is going to be incredibly tough to break into at this point, and it has already cost Microsoft a massive amount of money to get involved. I wouldn't expect to see Apple break into any new markets unless they actually had something innovative to bring to it.

I would agree. Besides, I have enough electronic crap around. The last thing I need is another propriatery box... (dumped my games boxes when I built my semi-cube copying winblows machine). I hate to say it, but porn and games drive the consumer computer industry, not cool design.

Although I hate the inelagence of the PC and Winbloze, I like just having one box for all my needs. The real lacks for me are the lower end video cards on Macs, smaller hard drives, stingy memory and still pay 2x for the industrial design, while not being able to play my favorite games (IL2 Forgotten battles AEP).

The gaming market is kind of a loser for gaming hardware anyway, but good for software.

I want the latest Mac stuff, but am having a hard time justifying spending twice as much and then still not be able to run the same games I have on the PC, all just to get something thats 'cooler'.

[BuonRotto]

I hate to say it, but porn and games drive the consumer computer industry, not cool design.

Kind of a non sequitur about design there. Design is not decor. Design is integral to porn, gaming, media management and creation (aka digital hub), etc.

If gaming is your thing, then, yes, a Mac is not in the right direction for you. But you're also forgetting the idea of media management, aka, the digital hub as a big consumer market. Clearly, gaming and porn are bigger markets, but a company like Apple with a small piece of the market needs to be focused on its strengths, and this is one area they can focus on and outperform others. I tend to think the computer is starting to splinter away from the idea of being a swiss army knife anyway, and specializing into various markets: gaming consoles, consumer media, audio, video, pro media, education, porn, etc. There's no one solution for everyone's needs, and increasingly no one solution for an individual's needs either.

[Commodus]

I hate to say it, but porn and games drive the consumer computer industry, not cool design.

In that case, Apple in 2005 will dominate the market of computer users looking for porn!

Think about it: Automator (in Tiger) will let you grab the images from a website, dump them into iPhoto, and then create a slideshow where you can look at those dirty pictures in grandiose detail on a 30" Cinema HD display. :lol:

[hmurchison]

I want the latest Mac stuff, but am having a hard time justifying spending twice as much and then still not be able to run the same games I have on the PC, all just to get something thats 'cooler'.

Statements like this and the Games/Porn driving the industry quip will make many people on this board start skipping over your posts. We aren't newbies here, we're all computer enthusiasts and we know that Macs don't cost 2x the price of a PC. Many of us are willing to pay a slight premium for OSX and the design but I doubt any of us would pay double.

[central183]

I want an alarm clock built right into the system. It would start music, the TV, cook toast maybe.

[trailmaster308]

Who said pron wasn't good on he Mac.......WHO SAID IT??

As a former windows pron professional, I can say without a stroke..er doubt, that pron is better on the Mac. Want proof????


proof (http://homepage.mac.com/darrenducote/.Public/davec01.mov)

clickity clack clickity clack :smokey:

[Luca]

It don't work. But I know what you're talking about.

[trailmaster308]

It don't work. But I know what you're talking about.

fixed...forgot a letter.

link for whoever said pron wasn't good on the mac (http://homepage.mac.com/darrenducote/.Public/davec01.mov) :D

[moazam]

I'm really hoping for a 23" LCD based G5 iMac. If it comes out, and it's not too high priced (above the base 23" LCD that is), then I'll get one. Otherwise I'll wait 6 months and try my best to spring for a Dual G5 workstation with 23" or 30" display.

The 23" iMac would just be easier and cheaper for me... :/ Heres to hoping.

-M

[MacUsers]

That won't happen... the iMac is a consumer level machine... a 23" display would be crazy.

[moazam]

That won't happen... the iMac is a consumer level machine... a 23" display would be crazy.

Yah, you're probably right.

I'll probably start looking at the 23" LCD and one of the Dual G5s... :/

-M

[Messiahtosh]

How do ya'll like the look of this one?

http://mackompass.de/images/stories/apple/iMac_G5.jpg

[DMBand0026]

Cool, but it looks very big. I realize that it would have to be bigger than the original Cube, but that thing just looks...well, massive. Other than that, anodized aluminum enclosure, colors, re-introduction of the Cube, I'm sold. :)

[Maciej]

Isn't the anodized aluminum a staple of the Pro line tho? I don't know, I'm liking the mock up, thats for sure!

[colonelforbin]

How do ya'll like the look of this one?

that looks great. if it actually looked like that, and i was going to get a desktop, not a powerbook, i would be all over that.

[oldmacfan]

Isn't the anodized aluminum a staple of the Pro line tho? I don't know, I'm liking the mock up, thats for sure!
I am tired of hearing that the same old seperation of pro and consumer thing. The iMac G1 and the PowerMac G3 and G4 used to share a similar look. It was just in the last year or so that this seperation of looks was going on.

[Maciej]

I suppose your right. But it really seems like the separation is here.

[Robo]

I get what you're saying, oldmacfan, but you sorta shot yourself in the foot a bit: If Apple just started the whole "consumer line = white, pro line = aluminum" thing a year ago, I don't think they'd want to scrap that and start all over so soon...right?

I like having the seperation. Everything matches ;)

[applenut]

I get what you're saying, oldmacfan, but you sorta shot yourself in the foot a bit: If Apple just started the whole "consumer line = white, pro line = aluminum" thing a year ago, I don't think they'd want to scrap that and start all over so soon...right?

I like having the seperation. Everything matches ;)

why does everyone think Apple cares about seperation of style? they care about selling..... and what looks best. the iPod mini is consumer....its aluminum.


that mockup above shows me only one thing.....how appealing anodized aluminum would be on a desktop computer. it definitely looks like that would be the way to go. hopefully they do but in a more practical form factor

[pscates2.0]

I definitely think it could work, although I'd like to see a more graceful and "cool" design. But the colored aluminum doesn't offend me. As long as they plop in a 17" wide standalone display (IF they're going to go the two-piece route), that'll sell like CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!

I don't care what AIO advocates say, there are lots of people out there - PC users, most importantly - who already have displays they love and enjoy (and maybe shelled out good money for) and would love to get into a Mac, but NOT at G5 tower prices.

The above machine would be for them, as well as all us Mac people too of course! Those who care about "matching" and appearances can choose a 17", 20" or 23" Apple display to go with it. Or you can use your current Sony or Viewsonic or Formac display.

Just seems to be a more sensible approach, really.

Let the eMac be the entry-level, affordable AIO newbie machine...and take the governor off the mid-range iMac, once and for all! And stand back and watch Apple sell the living crap out of them.

[DMBand0026]

Let the eMac be the entry-level, affordable AIO newbie machine...and take the governor off the mid-range iMac, once and for all! And stand back and watch Apple sell the living crap out of them.

Couldn't agree with you more. Will it happen? Not likely, but we can always hope.

[oldmacfan]

I get what you're saying, oldmacfan, but you sorta shot yourself in the foot a bit: If Apple just started the whole "consumer line = white, pro line = aluminum" thing a year ago, I don't think they'd want to scrap that and start all over so soon...right?

I like having the seperation. Everything matches ;)
It was more than a year ago, that is why I said a year or so.
But the point I was trying to make is that there is no telling what Apple might do design wise. If Apple can pull it off cost wise, I see no reason why they would not use anodized aluminum with some of the mini colors. Apple will put forward the product that they feel will fill the iMac's space in the market, what ever they decide that space actually is.

My PC is in an Aluminum case cause I think it looks cool. Except that it is hard to see under there. All I can see is the front of it with all the mismatched drives that don't match the case and I have no desire to mod it just so the drives match.

[dglow]

Great thread. :) Allow me to share a few thoughts:

1. The rumors of the optical drive behind the screen disturb me - this seems like a big mistake both technically and ergonomically. If these iMacs resemble the new cinema displays at all, wouldn't it make sense to integrate the optical drive with the base? Always horizontal, easily visible to the user - a thin slot with firewire and USB ports flanking it?

2. As major factors affecting the price of PCs, it seems offering a full range of LCDs and GPUs would let Apple to cover a broad swath of the mid-range market in terms of price and capability (combined with their standard stratification of CPU, RAM, and HD). They've already started down this path with iMac2 and the recent PowerBooks, right? Maybe the question is why wouldn't Apple offer both screen size and graphics chip as BTO options? They'd apparently make a lot of Mac geeks happy and do themselves a favor in the market.

Selling display and/or GPU upgrades separately appears much less likely, and I'm guessing Apple would be unwilling to go there.

3. DVI-In option. Let a PowerBook or other machine share that beautiful screen! I wouldn't feel bad about plunking down $$ for a 20" iMac if I knew it could also serve as a second display. :D

[moazam]

It would be nice if the new iMacs had TV-tuners built in. It'd be even nicer if they allowed the internal display to have a DVI-IN port which would allow users to be able to use an external computer to drive the display also...

I'm sure both of these requests are highly unlikely though.

-M

[moazam]

Great thread. :) Allow me to share a few thoughts:
3. DVI-In option. Let a PowerBook or other machine share that beautiful screen! I wouldn't feel bad about plunking down $$ for a 20" iMac if I knew it could also serve as a second display. :D

*DOH*! I guess I shoulda read the last message in the thread before posting. :P

-M

[Messiahtosh]

Superdrives across the board, 512 MB RAM standard.

[dglow]

Superdrives across the board

Not if a combo drive let them hit the magic $999, or some other desirable price point.

[pscates2.0]

I don't know, all this talk about that magical $999 "sweet spot". If anyone here can tell me how Apple would ever got about getting a G5-based AIO (with LCD) to $999, I'll actually go beyond Junkyard Dawg's challenge...

:lol:

I don't care what ol' Fred said...I'll be shocked - SHOCKED - to see one (fitting those above two specs - G5 and LCD-based AIO) for less than $1299-1499 (and that's pushing it).

:confused:

I GUESS they could have one entry model with a 15" square display, CD-ROM drive, cripped-to-pieces processor, cheap graphics, puny hard drive, etc. just so they can say they "hit the $1000 mark", but would anyone honestly buy it?

:(

I think the only way they could do that with a machine that actually mattered and appealed to anyone, would be if it were a headless unit, and that $999 actually bought you a 1.8GHz G5, 64-128MB graphics, all the latest I/O, AirPort and Bluetooth built-in, Panther, iLife 04, etc.

Then you'd hook it to your existing display OR pair it with one of Apple's (including a newly released 17" to go with the new iMac, as a default, base model). Those with the money could opt for the 20" or 23" instead...

[Messiahtosh]

People might buy it no matter what, because it's cool and has A G5!!!!>#HNU!

[Chinney]

[...]
Other than that, anodized aluminum enclosure, colors, re-introduction of the Cube, I'm sold. :)

I like the New Cube concept up above. That being said, I just don’t see Apple going in this direction.. Anodized aluminium? – perhaps. A non-AIO iMac? – perhaps. A Cube iMac? – not likely.

Although much loved by some, the Cube has some negative marketing baggage associated with it. I don’t see Apple moving backward in their design statements – at least not backward to the Cube. While ‘retro’ design is a trend, such designs generally copy styles that were marketing successes in their times – not ones which have a mixed record.

[Quagmire]

I like the New Cube concept up above. That being said, I just don’t see Apple going in this direction.. Anodized aluminium? – perhaps. A non-AIO iMac? – perhaps. A Cube iMac? – not likely.

Although much loved by some, the Cube has some negative marketing baggage associated with it. I don’t see Apple moving backward in their design statements – at least not backward to the Cube. While ‘retro’ design is a trend, such designs generally copy styles that were marketing successes in their times – not ones which have a mixed record.

I am sure hundreds even thouands more people wanted to buy the cube. It was just it was to expensive. Sure there are more reasons why the cube failed. But, I see price as main factor. I am sure if they make the imac a cube resurrection and include a 17" display seperate from the computer it will be a success. The new cube imac will satisfy the headless imac people since it is headless. It will also satisfy the people who want a nice display bundled with the computer. The cube imac will be a huge success in my view.

[Chinney]

I am sure hundreds even thouands more people wanted to buy the cube. It was just it was to expensive. Sure there are more reasons why the cube failed. But, I see price as main factor. I am sure if they make the imac a cube resurrection and include a 17" display seperate from the computer it will be a success. The new cube imac will satisfy the headless imac people since it is headless. It will also satisfy the people who want a nice display bundled with the computer. The cube imac will be a huge success in my view.

I don’t disagree with you about the original Cube. I understand that it was and is a good computer. Unfortunately, it was somewhat overpriced and was not well marketed. It was perceived as a noted commercial failure for Apple.

My point about why I don’t think that Apple will repeat the design in a new “iCube” is not related to the underlying merits of the design, but is rather due to the ‘whiff’ of failure that was associated with the original Cube. Why would they associate themselves with that, when they easily could come up with a fresh new design? And even beyond the potential negative association with the original Cube, I think that Apple design is about ‘doing something new and cool’ – I don’t see them repeating themselves when there are so many other possibilities.

I think that it is mainly the die-hard Apple-ites who clamour for a return of the Cube. While I think that Apple pays some attention to the die-hards, I don’t think that they feel constrained by the die-hards’ expectations. Apple will do something new.

Of course, I could be proved wrong in this. I hope that I am, because I liked the Cube design. But then again, I seem to have become a bit of a die-hard.

[Messiahtosh]

My final iMac predictions, hopes, and guesses before the introduction of it.

•iPod mini bundled with every new iMac

•1.8 GHz G5 at the low and mid range

•2 GHz G5 on the top end model

•Combo drive on low and mid range, Superdrive on high end

•512 MB RAM standard on all models

•15" LCD on low and mid range models

•17'' LCD on the high end

Prices of $999 $1299 and $1499


BTW-they will use the current 15 and 17 inch PowerBook LCD's, which would help keep prices down.

[Quagmire]

My final imac G5 perdictions:

1.8 Ghz at low end

2.0 Ghz at high end and middle

we see the return of the slot load

low end graphics card is the 5200 with 64 MB

high end and middle gets 9600XT with 128 MB

17" and 20" screens similar design to current cinema displays

hoping for a cube look a like with the return of colors
prices at $999, $1199, and $ 1499

[Luca]

Wow. So... 1.8 GHz, Combo drive, 512 MB of RAM, 15" LCD, AND an iPod mini for $999?

They'd sell like hotcakes, that's for sure. Then again, would Apple even be making any money?

Plus, there seems to be a regression on screen sizes. I would hope that they'd drop the 15" entirely and go with the 17" on all models with a 20" available on the high end, but we can't count on that at all.

Maybe if they put a 15.2" widescreen with 1280x854 or 1280x800 on the low end... that would be awesome. Then again, it would give people less reason to upgrade to a 17".

[Messiahtosh]

I think at this point, Apple could make money with a system like that. The iPod is selling well enough and at such a price that I'm sure Apple could slim margins a little bit, to help sell the new iMac.

A 15'' LCD is definitely large enough for an iMac, especially if they use the PowerBook screen, and not a 15'' at 1024x768.

That's my guess.

[stoo]

But what would the price be if you don't need an iPod Mini? :cool:

[Messiahtosh]

But what would the price be if you don't need an iPod Mini? :cool:Who cares if you dont need one, get them out there. Make it look like a deal, it's part of the "sweet spot" price and can help Apple's price stay "reasonable."

Perception over reality, people see iPod and iMac for $999 or they see one product for $799. I'd go with the iPod/iMac combo.

Schools...

Ok, well...maybe offer the iPod and iMac combo deal like so...

$799 w/o iPod mini. $999 with.

$1099 w/o iPod mini. $1299 with.

$1299 w/o iPod mini, $1499 with.

:) Everyone happy now?

Just make the GPU upgradeable and the standard RAM more thsn 256, and it's a killer product.

[spiff]

This is more of wishful thinking than an actual prediction but it would work.

Headless iMac, whatever sorta design. Personally, I like the cube design, as long as the user can get to everything, and it's cheaper.

I think the price range of the old iMacs was good, there's the eMacs on the cheap side and the powermacs on the top. So, with a monitor they need to be in the $1500 to $2000 range.

1.6 ghz G5, 512 RAM, superdrive, ATI Radeon 9600 XT 128, $1000

1.8 ghz G5, 512 RAM, superdrive, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128, $1200

All RAM should be user accessible, along with the GPU, should adopt industry standards on everything they can so users can upgrade. Superdrive and GPU would be build to order, I just configured base models above, you should be able to get those specs for those prices. As usual, all the standard I/O

Then as far as screens, release a new 17 inch, for something like $700 to go along with the rest, but give a $100 or $200 discount if bundled with the new iMac.

I'd like to see a GPU that could capture video (ATI all-in-wonders), I think that would really bring the whole digital hub thing together if you watch and record TV on your iMac. Apple would then of course have to release some spiffy software for it.

What will probably happen, is they'll release something with specs and price similar to that but AIO with no upgradability.

[stoo]

Apple would then of course have to release some spiffy software for it.

One of the things that annoyed me about the last PowerPC Performas was that you could almost use them as a video recorder but they weren't quite there. It would be nice to see PC-VR done right. :)

[DMBand0026]

One of the things that annoyed me about the last PowerPC Performas was that you could almost use them as a video recorder but they weren't quite there. It would be nice to see PC-VR done right. :)

You're talking about the 6400 series, correct? Or something right around there I would imagine. The fact is, those things didn't have enough HDD space, or fast enough drives for that matter to be effective video recorders. Great machines, but they really were more like glorified TVs than VCRs.

[Robo]

I LOVE that concept, Messiahtosh.

If there was an iMac that had a 1.8 GHz G5, included a monitor, cost $999 and came with an iPod mini "free" I would buy it in a heartbeat. I wouldn't care that it'd be twice what I would otherwise spend on a computer, I wouldn't care if they decapitated it, I wouldn't care if it was not cute in the least, I wouldn't care if the iPod mini was really 2GB, I wouldn't care if they came out with a yellow iPm in January, I wouldn't care that the screen was "only" 15 inches...you know why I wouldn't care?

Because I'd finally, finally after years of being interested, finally after years of using other people's Macs, finally after being a "spectator" for the Mac scene for so long, I'd finally have a Mac of my own. Same goes for the iPod. I'd finally have one.

A couple thoughts, though: First, Messiahtosh, there isn't anything in your concept that seperates the low-end from the mid-range models at all. A bit of an oversight, isn't it? I think the mid-range model will have a Superdrive.

Oh, and perhaps most importantly, I know Apple will never, ever, ever make that. So thanks for setting me up for a dissapointment if the new iMac is anything less then miraculously brilliant and inexpensive.

But as I was saying...I LOVE that concept... ;)

[dglow]

Because I'd finally, finally after years of being interested, finally after years of using other people's Macs, finally after being a "spectator" for the Mac scene for so long, I'd finally have a Mac of my own.
Roboman, what's keeping you from buying a Mac today? :D


Oh, and perhaps most importantly, I know Apple will never, ever, ever make that. So thanks for setting me up for a dissapointment if the new iMac is anything less then miraculously brilliant and inexpensive.

But as I was saying...I LOVE that concept..
Are you saying that unless Apple builds Messiahtosh's design you won't get a Mac at all?
:confused:

[stoo]

The fact is, those things didn't have enough HDD space, or fast enough drives for that matter to be effective video recorders.

A DMA capable master/slave EIDE controller would have rocked in those Macs. They were also a bit low on CPU power as well.

[DMBand0026]

A DMA capable master/slave EIDE controller would have rocked in those Macs. They were also a bit low on CPU power as well.

Right, without stating the obvious lack of CPU power. :) They were great machines, but you're very right, fell short in those few areas.

[Luca]

On the other hand, their expansion capabilities were great for a consumer machine. The processor was soldered onto the motherboard, but it was very easy to replace the floppy drive, CD drive, and hard drive. They used special drive sleds and rigid connectors for the drives so you could just pull the original out, move the sled over to the new drive, and insert it. Super easy. They also had two PCI slots I think.

A similar philosophy of "limited expansion" made it into the Cube. I sure hope they can do something like that with the iMac. Having a fully sealed box where the only things you can install are a wireless card and RAM is a bit excessive, and it seems like the kind of limitation that is only justified in a laptop. Even worse, the G4 iMacs only have ONE accessible RAM slot, with the other sealed inside. Stupid.

[Messiahtosh]

I LOVE that concept, Messiahtosh.

But as I was saying...I LOVE that concept... ;)Thanks for the kind words, I hope none of us are dissapointed at the new iMac.

[FallenFromTheTree]

While I agree that Apple needs to address the entry and mid level consumer with a solid machine, I've always thought that these models
are a bit too limited for expansion and upgrades.

The idea that keeps coming to my mind would be a modular design,
allowing you to purchase an entry level iMac, then adding a second
or third CPU module as your needs require.

This would in effect allow you to upgrade from a single processor system
to a dual processor system simply by adding a second module.
As CPU chips and graphics memory and the consumers' budget improve, one might be able to set up the newer module as the master while allowing the original module to run as slave.
This option could be incorporated into either an all in one or headless configuration as long as there was a way to connect the additional module.

Just a thought