[oldmacfan]

Last week I was asked by the IT Department for system recommendations on replacing one of our Mac labs with of course new Macs. It came down to one option, the low end G5 Tower. There was really no other choice in that lab because of the set-up (a very bad set-up). So the powers that be come back and tell me that they can't afford the PowerMac and that they want to carry the present machines (PM G4 400 (two different versions) with 128 or 192 MBs ram running 10.3) over till the beginning of 2006 when they will buy replacements. I looked at them funny and said why? "The Apple Rep, who actually works for Apple told us that Apple will be releasing a "New sub $1000 desktop system at the begining of 2006"". I looked at him and said a desktop system with no Monitor attached, and he said "that is what they told me".

The IT Department, not one to ever ever do upgrades on systems (let alone pay for them) is actually going to spend about $200 per machine to drop in more ram and a new hard drive, so we can finish our Tiger migration. I have been asking since I walked in the door my first day of work for upgrades for these machines and have been denied every time. Now when it is time for the Lab to be replaced (we have policies on when they have to be replaced) they choke on spending the money and offer to upgrade to cover the next six months based on what Apple told them.

I can add no more information than this.

[Dave Hagan]

Interesting. I wonder if it will be an Intel system?

[psmith2.0]

Probably updated minis.

That is odd. Are Apple reps traditionally privy to this sort of thing? I see it debated here often.



In any case, sounds like a good way for a blabbermouth rep to lose his job if Apple finds out he's going around saying this.

The "beginning of 2006" points to MWSF, so who knows.

Jeez...Apple is going to wind up with eleventy-hundred bazillion desktop models...



Perhaps this would be an eMac replacement? A buffed-up Mac mini, only with better graphics, full-size drives, etc. Perhaps that G5-based Cube/mini-tower folks have been begging for? A slightly larger (8" square) and taller (3-4") "mini", with upgradeable components, easy-to-install RAM (two user accessible slots!) and wireless and graphics... That would be pretty neat, and would more than meet the needs of many, many people. Simply a better, more capable version of the mini, addressing all the mini's shortcomings/faults...

I don't know. I'll believe it when I see it. So hard to tell anymore, and so many times these "well, a guy I know who knows this guy who used to be a rep said that..." turn out to be nothing.

Would a rep know something like this. And if so, this far in advance?









...hey, ask the rep if he knows anything about the iBooks!

[Kyros]

My guess is that it's complete BS, there won't be another new, cheap system. A mac mini update seems like a possibility by then, but that's not exactly "new."

[psmith2.0]

I certainly HOPE it's a mini update "by then"...it will have been 12 months, after all.

If I could change one thing (okay, two things...my stance on the marketing/advertising is legendary at this point ), it would be that they somehow do one of two things:

1. Stop offering underwhelming specs and components and then letting that particular product sit dormant for 6, 9 or 12 months. I'm looking at the mini when I say that (and kinda the iBook, a little)...

or

2. Continue to offer underwhelming specs and components, BUT either a) refresh the line to bring it up to snuff in a reasonable (six months) amount of time, OR b) simply offer the option to BTO a slightly beefier version of said underwhelming machine. I figure tons of folks would pay a bit extra if they could get a 5400rpm hard drive and 64/128MB graphics on the mini.

The mini has the potential to be the perfect machine for thousands and thousands of users (people who'd never get a tower because they simply have no need for the expansion bays, card slots, don't like the bulk and expense, etc.), but it's going to get harder and harder for people to feel good about getting a mini at current specs, considering.

No, that doesn't make me a "spec whore". Please.

Makes me a realist.

[oldmacfan]

I just spoke with my IT guy again and this is not a Mini update, this is a completely new system.

[psmith2.0]

A maxi!

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 A maxi!

with wings! And a super-absorbant weave... Oh right. We're talking computers again. Sorry.

[johnwillo]

Originally Posted by Bryson with wings! And a super-absorbant weave... Oh right. We're talking computers again. Sorry.

That's the upcoming PDA, the Max iPad.

[atomicbartbeans]

Originally Posted by johnwillo That's the upcoming PDA, the Max iPad.

Post of the week.

[atomicbartbeans]

Seriously, Apple very much needs a headless desktop situated nicely between the Mini and PowerMac.

Right now, there's a huge, gaping hole. On the left, we have the budget, low-end underpowered desktop. On the right, we have the professional, high-end full-size desktop. Something should be put in the middle... with the specs of the iMac, minus the display. If you take the screen out of the iMac, it would make a very nice pizza box a la 6100.

Edit: Come to think of it, the pizza box form factor sucks. More realistic would be the mini form factor, but 4-5 times as tall (more so than it is wide), like the G4 cube.

[psmith2.0]

That's probably what it's going to be (assuming, of course, the story is true).

There is indeed a bit of a gap when you think of it that way. The only thing in that $800-$2000 range are the AIO eMac and iMac. And I think it's more than safe to assume that PLENTY of folks do not want (and tend not to go for) AIOs, for whatever reason. That's been proven, and we hear it A LOT.

To them, they're truly out in the cold: the Mac mini is too weak, PowerMac is too expensive/big/overkill. They don't like AIOs and they don't want a laptop.

But you're right: if the specs of an iMac G5 can be crammed into that space (figuring the display is mostly dictating that large size), then I see no reason there can't be a display-less version, somewhere between the size of the mini and the G4 Cube that could sit comfortably in that price range and really appeal to TONS of people (if I were a desktop user, it would certainly be the one I'D go for...iMac power, choice of display, small design, no wasted space or expansion, etc.)

Apple could truly then, at that point, say they have the bases covered:

THREE desktop systems: budget, mid-range and pro, all offering display choice for the consumer. Apple's or any number of third-party displays.

Then two AIOs (eMac and iMac) and two laptops (iBook and PowerBook), with variations within, of course (as currently offered).

SURELY in that $499-2999 range, there would be something for everyone...

[Luca]

Apple employees are generally not told about upcoming hardware releases like that. I doubt this guy is legit.

[atomicbartbeans]

Maybe he knows some higher-ups personally.

[Ryan]

I've been saying that the Cube will return ever since it was cancelled. I thought it had with the Mini. Maybe I was wrong.

But I think he's wrong and all this is, at best, is updated Mini's.

[rickag]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 That's probably what it's going to be (assuming, of course, the story is true). There is indeed a bit of a gap when you think of it that way. The only thing in that $800-$2000 range are the AIO eMac and iMac. And I think it's more than safe to assume that PLENTY of folks do not want (and tend not to go for) AIOs, for whatever reason. That's been proven, and we hear it A LOT. To them, they're truly out in the cold: the Mac mini is too weak, PowerMac is too expensive/big/overkill. They don't like AIOs and they don't want a laptop. But you're right: if the specs of an iMac G5 can be crammed into that space (figuring the display is mostly dictating that large size), then I see no reason there can't be a display-less version, somewhere between the size of the mini and the G4 Cube that could sit comfortably in that price range and really appeal to TONS of people (if I were a desktop user, it would certainly be the one I'D go for...iMac power, choice of display, small design, no wasted space or expansion, etc.) Apple could truly then, at that point, say they have the bases covered: THREE desktop systems: budget, mid-range and pro, all offering display choice for the consumer. Apple's or any number of third-party displays. Then two AIOs (eMac and iMac) and two laptops (iBook and PowerBook), with variations within, of course (as currently offered). SURELY in that $499-2999 range, there would be something for everyone...

Your preaching to the choir(if of course you're including the capability of upgrading the video card, even if it's only at the time of purchase, I don't want to be too picky).

I've had the same signature here and many boards since well,.... I can't remember.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Luca Apple employees are generally not told about upcoming hardware releases like that. I doubt this guy is legit.

Apple representatives in charge of huge accounts and purchases who are assigned to very large firms that purchase macs often have a very good idea of what is coming down the line. I have found out about new products in a very general sense many times when Apple had the NYC Board of Education account. Since Dell beat them out for renewel you hear less but people with connections tend to actually know some things.

It's not that no one knows in Apple, although that's often the case, it's mostly that people keep their secrets (with the few exceptions like thinksecret's sources)

[atomicbartbeans]

On Apple's jobs site, where you go to apply for a job at Apple, this is what they're looking for in sales people....

Was your last product launched with secrecy and finesse? Tell us how you did it.

That's the kind of people they want to hire. Doesn't always work that way, though.

[Unch]

Are you sure this isn't some bullshit story concocted by the powers that be to get around paying for new machines.

Ignoring the issue about whether the rep is privy to this kind of info for the moment. Does this sound like that normal behaviour of a sales guy? Why would he miss out on getting a bigger sale now? It doesn't make sense to me.

[psmith2.0]

Maybe he's an honest, ethical salesperson?

















Whew...couldn't breathe there for a minute...sigh.

[kretara]

I hope its true, but I doubt it.

The University I work for is interested in buying some desktop Macs, but the PM is too expensive (and kind of BIG), the mini is too speed challenged (crappy laptop HD) and is non-upgradeable (non-future proof), and we don't want an AIO.

So that leaves us with buying Dell's. Your loss Steve, for being so stuck on the AIO only theme for 'consumer' desktops.

[atomicbartbeans]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Maybe he's an honest, ethical salesperson?

Say it ain't so!

[oldmacfan]

Well, I didn't get to talk to the Apple rep (and we are not talking about a third party rep) the guy in charge of buying every piece of technology that is used on all of our campuses did.

He was on the phone with the Apple rep for about an hour talking about the specifics of the situation. That is when the rep told him about this product. If the rep is trying to make a sale, why would he tell us to wait till essentially next fiscal year (and ours start July 1)? The rep's are not out-of-the-loop as to how public schools work it is their job to know this. If you fail to get a sale during the summer from a school, you are next to out-of-luck.

[hobbit.2]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan The rep's are not out-of-the-loop as to how public schools work it is their job to know this. If you fail to get a sale during the summer from a school, you are next to out-of-luck.

That explains a lot. And actually makes this information more believable (at least regarding the sales rep's actions).

It was said that the G5 was the only option they had. Specs-wise. If that's the case it could very well be that also the G5 never was a real option money-wise. Schools are always strapped for cash. If specs-wise the G5 is the only option, then it is more likely that the one real option ends up being DELL.
And at _that_ point an Apple rep will divulge information - if it helps to keep the client. Once a school switches over to DELL it will be hard to get it back. It is better to release a few sensitive informations (albeit in a very generic form) if they tie the client over for another year. Especially if it is a big and/or prestigious client.

And by the looks of it the rep succeeded. So it was worth it.

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by hobbit.2 That explains a lot. And actually makes this information more believable (at least regarding the sales rep's actions). It was said that the G5 was the only option they had. Specs-wise. If that's the case it could very well be that also the G5 never was a real option money-wise. Schools are always strapped for cash. If specs-wise the G5 is the only option, then it is more likely that the one real option ends up being DELL. And at _that_ point an Apple rep will divulge information - if it helps to keep the client. Once a school switches over to DELL it will be hard to get it back. It is better to release a few sensitive informations (albeit in a very generic form) if they tie the client over for another year. Especially if it is a big and/or prestigious client. And by the looks of it the rep succeeded. So it was worth it.

We are a Gateway school for most of what we do, but the Math, Natural Science, fine art, and Academic Computing Departments are mostly Mac and strongly entrenched that way.

The talk is now that they might pop for iMacs next year and change the layout of the room. What the biggest issue has been is that the desks in this room, which nobody wants to replace, have the monitor and CPU below the desk. The head of Natural Science has now agreed to have the Monitor above the desk as long as it is a flat panel display. Which is standard with all systems PC or Mac we buy now. We don't really have an issue with these die hard departments switching, we just aren't able to spend do to cost.

[dougiemac]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan If you fail to get a sale during the summer from a school, you are next to out-of-luck.

Well that's not true, my district buy computers year round, as their money doesn't come all at once. They get grants throughout the year and they like to spread their budget out... so updating one lab at a time, summer, fall, winter, or spring is the way they do it.

[kretara]

Our "year" also starts on July 1. We buy almost nothing throughout the year and go on a huge spending spree in April and May. Its like Christmas in Spring.

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by dougiemac Well that's not true, my district buy computers year round, as their money doesn't come all at once. They get grants throughout the year and they like to spread their budget out... so updating one lab at a time, summer, fall, winter, or spring is the way they do it.

Our plans are made now, when we spend the money is a different issue. We have committee's of committee's that waste a lot of time debating this crap all year long and buy August 1st every year we know which labs are getting updated and then we spread them around the year.

The decision is different than the purchase.

[iDaver]

At today's conference call in which Apple discussed third quarter results, an Apple exectutive said there will be new PowerPC products in coming quarters. I don't think this means brand-new products; rather updates to existing lines. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Based on Apple statements as to the future availability of Intel Macs, I think expecting Intel Macs at the beginning of 2006 is pushing it. I doubt seriously that Intel processors will be put into ANYTHING other than brand-new redesigned Macs. And, I doubt there will be any brand-new redesigned Macs before they have Intel processors in them.

So, expecting a new sub-$1000 desktop system at the beginning of 2006 is unrealistic. Well into 2006 is more likely, unless Apple is farther along with its Intel plans than I think.

[hyperb0le]

If this guy was telling the truth, then he is certainly violating an NDA and could be fired. Hence, there are two possible scenarios:

a) He's full of it

b) He's an idiot for jeopardizing his job so that he can *NOT* make a sale

I'm inclined to go with option A.