Oppenheimer-New iMac Based On G5

[Messiahtosh]

"The next generation iMac will be based on the G5 from IBM", said Oppenheimer in the Apple Q3 conference call. He said that Apple usually doesnt comment about the future of its product but Apple feels that the public should know about the iMac and that IBM manufacturing issues have caused the delay. Apparently IBM says they are back on track and Apple will announce and ship the new iMac in September, like they said at the beginning of this month.

[stoo]

But which one: 1.6GHz 970 to 2GHz 970FX?
What frontside bus?
And what of enclosures? :)

[Messiahtosh]

He said the ones that IBM was having trouble with were the 1.8's, 2.0's and also the 2.5's. So it's either the 1.8's or the 2.0's.

[Messiahtosh]

Tim Cook just said that the reason for the G5 pinch is not because of heat issues, but it's purely the availability of the G5 at 90nm.

[Wrao]

He said the ones that IBM was having trouble with were the 1.8's, 2.0's and also the 2.5's. So it's either the 1.8's or the 2.0's.

I'm sure that they will have a 1.6 ghz model as well. Just because IBM wasn't having problems with them doesn't mean anything.

[Messiahtosh]

I'm sure that they will have a 1.6 ghz model as well. Just because IBM wasn't having problems with them doesn't mean anything.That is possible, but he plainly said that the next iMac is based on a chip G5 chip that IBM is having trouble manufacturing at 1.8, 2.0, and the PowerMac with the 2.5.

[curiousuburb]

The thread title made me think the model was code named Oppenheimer...
which would have been way cool.

Confirmation of the 'obvious' is less exciting somehow.

[Wrao]

That is possible, but he plainly said that the next iMac is based on a chip G5 chip that IBM is having trouble manufacturing at 1.8, 2.0, and the PowerMac with the 2.5.

but that doesn't mean anything other than the fact that they were having manufacturing problems with 1.8 and the 2.0, the 1.6 is still readily available, and no longer being used in the powermacs.

[Messiahtosh]

but that doesn't mean anything other than the fact that they were having manufacturing problems with 1.8 and the 2.0, the 1.6 is still readily available, and no longer being used in the powermacs.Look, he said the G5 supply was the main issue.

[Wrao]

Look, he said the G5 supply was the main issue.

I didn't contest that, I said that just because he said there is a problem with 1.8 and 2.0 isn't an indication that the imacs are only going to be released in 1.8 and 2.0 ghz models.

[jade]

I didn't contest that, I said that just because he said there is a problem with 1.8 and 2.0 isn't an indication that the imacs are only going to be released in 1.8 and 2.0 ghz models.

if apple talking about upcoming announcments?????? what's next a road map?

[Luca]

if apple talking about upcoming announcments?????? what's next a road map?
i dont now????????????????????????????????????????????












:D

[Messiahtosh]

I didn't contest that, I said that just because he said there is a problem with 1.8 and 2.0 isn't an indication that the imacs are only going to be released in 1.8 and 2.0 ghz models.Agreed. I do think though, that there will be more than just a 1.6 GHz G5 iMac.

But anyway, how awesome are the current times? We are about to enter the days when "consumer" machines have G5's! :eek:

[Wrao]

Oh for sure, 1.6 1.8 2.0 sounds great, all single proc. I just hope they don't pull a cube and jack up the prices at all.

this'll really make the iMacs appealing again.

[Res]

I'm sure that they will have a 1.6 ghz model as well. Just because IBM wasn't having problems with them doesn't mean anything.

I really hope that they don't have a 1.6 GHz model, or a 1.8 GHz for that matter. For the iMac to be competitive against the current crop of P4s and AMD 64s it really needs to have a 2+ GHz G5 in it.

[nowayout11]

I really hope that they don't have a 1.6 GHz model, or a 1.8 GHz for that matter. For the iMac to be competitive against the current crop of P4s and AMD 64s it really needs to have a 2+ GHz G5 in it.

I agree that it would be more competitive... Realistically though, they won't shoot their whole wad at once by jumping straight to 2GHz.

That said, I'm slow to get excited about a single-proc G5 system of any kind. The dualies have a better chance of competing, but those PowerMacs are at least $2700 (1.8 dualie plus 17" display)... way over the price of a comparable P4/A64.

[Luca]

I am not really sure if they'll go for 1.8 or 2.0 GHz on the high end, but I'd be willing to bet they'll put 1.6 GHz G5s on the low end, for a number of reasons. First, 1.6 GHz G5s weren't reported as having shortages, so they should be able to ship at least some of the models right away with no delay. Secondly, it'll help keep the cost down. This should be priority #1 on Apple's list!

I'm really afraid that they'll screw this one up just as badly as the previous attempt - raising the price because of the new processor and design, and then never dropping it down to the level of the original iMac. Remember, the old iMac started at $1299, and gradually dropped to $999 over the first year of release, and then dropped to $799 about six months later. But the G4 iMac started at $1199 for the low end, was raised to $1299, dropped to $1199 again briefly, and then jumped back to $1299, where it stayed for the rest of the time. That was bad.

If the new iMacs are released at $1199 or $1299 for the lowest end model, Apple will be ridiculed for making the exact same mistake all over again. I expect it'll be $999 for the low end, which will make people happy. I don't even care about the higher end offerings, as I'm not getting one. I just think it's important for Apple to demonstrate that they can learn from their mistakes.

$999 on the low end would point to a model with a Combo drive, a 1.6 GHz G5 (faster chips can go in the expensive ones), and a 15" LCD. That's a pretty good deal, I think. Meanwhile, it should cover a nice big range - given the high entry price for PowerMacs, the iMac has to cover all this. But it shouldn't be the same as the way the iMac 2 covered this range. Before, it was $1299 for a barebones base model that was equal to or slightly worse than the $799 eMac. For the one that anyone actually wanted, with features that are standard equipment on moderately priced PCs rather than budget ones (DVD burner, 17" LCD, midrange graphics card, etc), you had to jump all the way to the $1799 17" iMac, which was far too big of a jump.

There should be more models. Not a "you pick each element" sort of setup, but more like the current PowerBook line. There's basically one model of 12" (there are actually two, but the only difference between the two is the Superdrive), two 15" models, and a 17" that is the same as the higher-end 15". Have a basic $999 15" iMac, with just a couple options, two models of 17" for $1299 and $1499 (or $1399 and $1599, whichever works), and a 20" premium model that is the same as the high end 17" for $1999. It'll cleanly fill the entire $1000-$2000 gap, and let people get most of what they need by providing enough models to match most budgets. I'm against having endless BTO options (i.e., you specify processor speed, hard drive, graphics card, optical drive and screen size), but you should have some flexibility. I'm sure there were plenty of people who wanted DVD burning capability in an iMac without needing the expensive 17" screen, not to mention the other features that push the price up. The previous line just got too simple later on, with the low end being a token "cheap" model that took parts from older machines, and the high end being an out-of-reach luxury item.

[InactionMan]

If they can ship a $999($1299 CAN) iMac G5 I'm not sure I'll really care about specs too much. At that price they'll fly off the shelves. And no need for the eMac if people can buy an iMac in that range. I think the only reason the eMac exists is because Apple knew they'd never get the FP iMac under a grand. Okay, one spec I'd want that I assume Apple will deliver on is for the iMac to meet the minimum requirements for Core Image/Video on the low-end model.

I still don't know why the didn't announce it at WWDC.

[BuonRotto]

I'm really afraid that they'll screw this one up just as badly as the previous attempt - raising the price because of the new processor and design, and then never dropping it down to the level of the original iMac.

Remember that there were specific reasons, mistakes and changes in their plans that prevented the price of the iMac from dropping. For one, they expected the price of LCDs to come way down in the months following the initial introduction. However, demand skyrocketed, and prices went up before levelling off. Also, the eMac was introduced somewhat reluctantly and filled the price slot where Apple wanted the iMac to go anyway.

With the eMac supplies also running out (are they also not being produced at this point?), likey to be either dicontuned or reintrrduced at the bargain basement level (relative to Apple -- that means $699 at best to about $899), plus with LCD prices finally coming down like Apple expected, this gives them more room to drop the price on the new iMac like they did with the first generation (well, first and second generation gumdrops, technically).

I think part of the sophomore jinx of the current iMac was that they expected to drop its price, but couldn't, and it doesn't have to do with the metal arm or circular motherboard IMO.

edit:

I think the reason they didn't announce it at WWD was to generate more coverage, not put all their eggs in one basket. Think Secret's report about the new iPods is significant with repsect to the line of thinking that says Apple wants the iPod and iMac announcements far enough apart to generate media coverage for each event. They're going to come out at about the same time, but they don't want to announce them at the same time because it would mean one round of media coverage, not two in that scenario. Same goes for WWDC. We're talking three rounds of summer product announcements from Apple, not one or two.

[Chinney]

Remember that there were specific reasons, mistakes and changes in their plans that prevented the price of the iMac from dropping. For one, they expected the price of LCDs to come way down in the months following the initial introduction. However, demand skyrocketed, and prices went up before levelling off. Also, the eMac was introduced somewhat reluctantly and filled the price slot where Apple wanted the iMac to go anyway.

With the eMac supplies also running out (are they also not being produced at this point?), likey to be either dicontuned or reintrrduced at the bargain basement level (relative to Apple -- that means $699 at best to about $899), plus with LCD prices finally coming down like Apple expected, this gives them more room to drop the price on the new iMac like they did with the first generation (well, first and second generation gumdrops, technically).

I think part of the sophomore jinx of the current iMac was that they expected to drop its price, but couldn't, and it doesn't have to do with the metal arm or circular motherboard IMO.

[...]



There has been a a fair bit of talk in the past about the extra cost of the arm - which is something that the iMac has that really sets it apart physically. I've always been impressed with the arm, but have never been certain, one way or the other, about the degree of extra cost that it actually adds. To the extent that it does add significantly to costs, the also-much-debated issue of offering the iMac with a headless (and armless, of course) option is the solution, rather than deleting the arm entirely.

I.e.: Options. Options. Options.

[BuonRotto]

My feeling is that even a headless iMac would bundle with a monitor with a movable screen on par with what the current iMac's arm allows. I'm not sure that, aside from introducing a standard mount a la the new Cinema Displays, that there is much savings in headless unless of course you go without an Apple monitor. Surely, Apple, if they do make a headless iMac, would make such a scanerio difficult by making a sweet deal on the bundled monitor or just plain including it in the box.