• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rumor mill: Apple to release $499 "headless" iMac

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
Click here

Apparantly Steve Jobs will introduce the new entry level machine at the MacWorld expo on January 11th. The $499 device will reportedly include:

1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256MB RAM
40GB or 80GB hard drive
USB 2.0
Firewire 400
10/100 BaseT Ethernet
Airport Express support
56k V.92 modem
A combo CD-ROM/DVD drive (BTO SuperDrive should be available)
DVI and VGA video support

The new iMac is reportedly TINY -- like 1.73 inches tall, and can either be oriented flat or on its side.

If true, all I can say is, it's about time Apple did this.
 

border

Member
Well it's cheap....at least by Mac standards. Though obviously you get what you pay for (slow CPU, hardly any RAM)...
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
border said:
Well it's cheap....at least by Mac standards. Though obviously you get what you pay for (slow CPU, hardly any RAM)...

Yeah, but people who buy machines in this price range aren't generally interested in a high powered machine anyway. While it could use more RAM, the system as is is more than enough for the tasks people would buy it for.
 
1.25Ghz G4 and 256MB of RAM for $500? :lol
Only Mac fans would think that's a bargain.

I remember 1.25Ghz G4 benching about half the speed of 2400+ Thoroughbred Athlon XP on Photoshop. Would anyone in their right minds pay $500 for a box with 1.4Ghz Thunderbird Athlon with 256MB of PC2100 in this day and age?

Oh yes, that's right. It's got OSX so it's worth it's weight in gold! :lol


edit: If they're serious about breaking out of the 5% market share, this thing ought to have a 1.6Ghz G5, no matter how much bigger it makes the box. That's reasonable for $500.
 

ckohler

Member
Think Secret has a great track record so it wouldn't surprise me if Apple actually released something like this. Only downside is the low bundled ram. Apple has always been too damn stingy with ram. Up it to 512 or 1G and this machine should perform nicely for a casual user.
 

border

Member
Well, for once I managed to beat Shogmaster to a Mac thread :lol

To be fair, the $499 systems from HP, Dell, Gateway, etc are nearly as crappy as this one. They all have 256 MB RAM, and typically don't even offer a CD/DVD combo drive (just CD). Integrated Intel video, 40 - 80 GB hdd. The major advantage is that they are clocked around 2.5 Ghz (AMD or Celeron). I think the RAM is going to be the major bottleneck on all of these systems though....faster CPU isn't going to help much if you are constantly hitting the swap file on a slow-ass HDD and XP is eating up all the memory.

The new iMac could be very competitive with the other budget systems out there....particularly if it looks stylish.
 

teiresias

Member
Obviously, if you have the know-how and price stuff online and can put together your own box then you'll get a better price/performance ratio, it will be a PC though. But I have to laugh at my friends who complain about "paying for the Sony name" but are happy to pay Mac's inflated prices without blinking and think their uber-l33t because of it.
 
Sweet. If I was still at home, and could afford a luxary beyond paying tuition and barely not starving to death... I would get one of these for upstairs to check email, surf the net etc. I love my Powerbook.
 
border said:
Well, for once I managed to beat Shogmaster to a Mac thread :lol

Curses! *shakes fist*

To be fair, the $499 systems from HP, Dell, Gateway, etc are nearly as crappy as this one. They all have 256 MB RAM, and typically don't even offer a CD/DVD combo drive (just CD). Integrated Intel video, 40 - 80 GB hdd. The major advantage is that they are clocked around 2.5 Ghz (AMD or Celeron). I think the RAM is going to be the major bottleneck on all of these systems though....faster CPU isn't going to help much if you are constantly hitting the swap file on a slow-ass HDD and XP is eating up all the memory.

The new iMac could be very competitive with the other budget systems out there....particularly if it looks stylish.

You can always add more RAM. You can't upgrade CPU on these slimtop type of boxes though, especially since it's a Mac. :D

Also, $500 gets you more than you think these days, Border.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...30815&productCategoryId=cat01172&type=product

This thing will kick the crap out of that suppose new Mac, and it's already here. :)
 

border

Member
I just pulled specs off each OEM's site. If Best Buy and other stores are chopping prices off special models, then iMac will have a lot of trouble. I couldn't find anything that good at any vendor's official site though. The model closest to that is $800 on Gateway.com
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
Shogmaster said:
Curses! *shakes fist*



You can always add more RAM. You can't upgrade CPU on these slimtop type of boxes though, especially since it's a Mac. :D

Also, $500 gets you more than you think these days, Border.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...30815&productCategoryId=cat01172&type=product

This thing will kick the crap out of that suppose new Mac, and it's already here. :)

But then again it's not a Mac. Don't underestimate the power of a a $499 iMac sitting next to an iPod in an Apple store. Want the best experience with your iPod? Here you go, right here. I think they're gonna sell a boatload of these things.
 
SteveMeister said:
But then again it's not a Mac. Don't underestimate the power of a a $499 iMac sitting next to an iPod in an Apple store. Want the best experience with your iPod? Here you go, right here. I think they're gonna sell a boatload of these things.

If that's gonna happen, they should have never released iTunes for PCs. ;)


border said:
I just pulled specs off each OEM's site. If Best Buy and other stores are chopping prices off special models, then iMac will have a lot of trouble. I couldn't find anything that good at any vendor's official site though. The model closest to that is $800 on Gateway.com

The model I found at BB is at Gateway's site for $700. I guess it's BB's holiday special. @_o

But then again, what about this one? Maybe not as good as the Gateway (lack of DVD+-RW, PC2700 instead of PC3200), still leaps and bounds over the supposed new Mac.
 

Phoenix

Member
If they can get it out for $500 and give it a nice design, the machine will do well - that much is a given. People buying cheap machines aren't concerned with doing Photoshop or any high end application. Anyone who thinks people are going to do Photoshop benchmarks or anything else other than mail, web, photo album, etc. is an idiot and clearly doesn't understand this segment of the market. This market segment is usually poorly upgradable and unless you hit fatwallet or similar and get a deal - ALL of these machines are of relatively poor performance.

Apple doesn't need to beef this machine up, they just need to make it cheap and cute.
 
Shogmaster said:
If that's gonna happen, they should have never released iTunes for PCs. ;)

Shog, you can talk about how for the same price you could built a slightly better PC all you want, but no one cares. It'll still run Windows. From my experience, people are moving away from Windows. Most people don't want a gaming machine, most people aren't going to run Photoshop, They just want a solid machine for word proccessing, internet, and e-mail. My parents and their friends are all switching to Mac because they're fucking sick of all the spyware, viruses and pop-ups. They're sick of having to call their kids to ask them how to run the spyware utilities optimally to clean their machines. Telling them that if they ran it right, they wouldn't have this problem means absolutely nothing, because they don't know how. The people that would buy these are the people who can't understand why their computers won't just work. Macs "just work." That's the selling point.
 
Phoenix said:
If they can get it out for $500 and give it a nice design, the machine will do well - that much is a given. People buying cheap machines aren't concerned with doing Photoshop or any high end application. Anyone who thinks people are going to do Photoshop benchmarks or anything else other than mail, web, photo album, etc. is an idiot and clearly doesn't understand this segment of the market.

Nice not so subtle jab there, although I don't remember suggesting the target market is interested in Photoshop benches. My point was that they are ancient and weak hardware not worth the money.

This market segment is usually poorly upgradable and unless you hit fatwallet or similar and get a deal - ALL of these machines are of relatively poor performance.

Relatively poor performance? Have you seen the machines I linked? Come on now. They out bench $1500 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac for crying out loud.

Apple doesn't need to beef this machine up, they just need to make it cheap and cute.

I think you guys put too much stock in Apple's design and the OSX. Those two aren't enough to sell 4 year old technology sans monitor for $500.





Manabanana said:
Shog, you can talk about how for the same price you could built a slightly better PC all you want, but no one cares.

First of all, I wasn't talking about "building" anything (linked are OEM machines), Second, they aren't "slightly" better hardware but exponentially more powerful, and third, I care and that's enough. :p

It'll still run Windows. From my experience, people are moving away from Windows.

Whee~ fun with useless personal anacdotes~ *jumps for joy*

Most people don't want a gaming machine, most people aren't going to run Photoshop, They just want a solid machine for word proccessing, internet, and e-mail.

And that's why Apple makes sure iMovie and iPhotos included in every Mac, huh?

My parents and their friends are all switching to Mac because they're fucking sick of all the spyware, viruses and pop-ups. They're sick of having to call their kids to ask them how to run the spyware utilities optimally to clean their machines. Telling them that if they ran it right, they wouldn't have this problem means absolutely nothing, because they don't know how. The people that would buy these are the people who can't understand why their computers won't just work. Macs "just work." That's the selling point.

If your parents are not savvy enough to run Live Update on their Norton, they will have their share of trobles with the Mac as well. That's my share of personal anacdote from having fixed enough people's 'puters (Macs included). Nothing "just works". Welcome to the real world. Converse of that is "they all work good enough".
 
My Powerbook G4 1.33 handles Photoshop just fine, even with a lot of other apps open. The CPU speed is not a major issue here. The RAM ceratinly is, though.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
Shogmaster said:
I think you guys put too much stock in Apple's design and the OSX. Those two aren't enough to sell 4 year old technology sans monitor for $500.

I think that you don't understand the market these machines are aimed at. This market doesn't CARE about cutting edge technology. They care about price, usability, and design. $499 is dirt cheap for ANY consumer-level computer, and when Apple shows this thing next to an iPod, people will buy lots of them.

A little more info -- apparantly it'll come with iLife (iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, Garage Band, but not iDVD) and Appleworks.
 

Phoenix

Member
Manabanana said:
Shog, you can talk about how for the same price you could built a slightly better PC all you want, but no one cares. It'll still run Windows. From my experience, people are moving away from Windows. Most people don't want a gaming machine, most people aren't going to run Photoshop, They just want a solid machine for word proccessing, internet, and e-mail. My parents and their friends are all switching to Mac because they're fucking sick of all the spyware, viruses and pop-ups. They're sick of having to call their kids to ask them how to run the spyware utilities optimally to clean their machines. Telling them that if they ran it right, they wouldn't have this problem means absolutely nothing, because they don't know how. The people that would buy these are the people who can't understand why their computers won't just work. Macs "just work." That's the selling point.

Yeah, and I'll share with you a story that I found truly disturbing.

I was helping out a business associate who has a Windows XP that was so bad with rooting that it would just reboot anytime someone tried to log in. I formatted the machine for them and put XP Home back on it and told him that he needed to run Windows update so he could get SP2 and any other patches. He didn't know where Windows Update was, he didn't understand what he should do and dialog boxes that were popping up that made sense to me made absolutely no sense to him. He plugged in a digital camera and installed some software to make it run, but couldn't understand the photo management software which I found odd. However this guy is an Avid god! He does amazing things with video editing and he can't really deal with the OS and keeping it up to date. I think ALL of the engineers that work on software: games, operating systems, set top boxes, phones, etc. are ALL missing the boat on how easy things need to be for the average user - the king of person who would buy these $500 Macs.
 

Phoenix

Member
Shogmaster said:
Nice not so subtle jab there, although I don't remember suggesting the target market is interested in Photoshop benches. My point was that they are ancient and weak hardware not worth the money.

Wasn't specifically addressing you - just all the benchmark monkies who are ALWAYS wrong when it comes to these types of things. The best technology doesn't always win - in fact it rarely wins. Marketing moves everything around me, it brings the money, dollar dollar bills yall.

Relatively poor performance? Have you seen the machines I linked? Come on now. They out bench $1500 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac for crying out loud.

And who knows this? Do the customers who buy $500 machines look at benchmarks? No these are the same people buying electronics from Walmart and KMart in volumes because it is cheap. Do people buying $80-$100 digital cameras realize they are shit? No, the realize that they can finally afford something that they wanted. To them, these are all the same relatively 'low performance' machines.


I think you guys put too much stock in Apple's design and the OSX. Those two aren't enough to sell 4 year old technology sans monitor for $500.

Yeah - the same theory that said that ipods would never sell, that the ipod mini didn't make sense in a price ratio, and that Apple would be out of business about 10,000 times now.
 
Phoenix said:
Wasn't specifically addressing you - just all the benchmark monkies who are ALWAYS wrong when it comes to these types of things. The best technology doesn't always win - in fact it rarely wins. Marketing moves everything around me, it brings the money, dollar dollar bills yall.

You know Mr. Smarty-pants, the benches came when G4 was Mac's top of the line stuff. It was to inform workstation buyers of which was more powerful for their Photoshop usage.

And who knows this? Do the customers who buy $500 machines look at benchmarks? No these are the same people buying electronics from Walmart and KMart in volumes because it is cheap. Do people buying $80-$100 digital cameras realize they are shit? No, the realize that they can finally afford something that they wanted. To them, these are all the same relatively 'low performance' machines.

If performance means nothing to this crowd, then how would they distnguish this $500 Mac with $250 Emachine that BB and CompUSA sells in their crazy deals?

You guys should really think that reasoning through.

Yeah - the same theory that said that ipods would never sell, that the ipod mini didn't make sense in a price ratio, and that Apple would be out of business about 10,000 times now.

iPod never sold on price ratio. They sold on perception of being the best MP3 player on the planet. Is this $500 Mac gonna be the best computer on the planet?
 
Shog, it's like you're deliberately missing the point.

$500 + ease of use, for some people, will trump $250 and Windows.

Especially when that ease-of-use is interfacing with their iPod.

Now, I for one think the iPod mini is a waste-- but miniaturization matter to some people, and it is tiny.

Anyway, what's your motive, Shog? Why do you constantly rag on the Macs? I know mine isn't the best price/performace ratio, but raw power in a computer hasn't been vital to me (or, I daresay) most users for years now. As I said, my 1.33 GHz G4 runs photoshop fast enough for me, a non-professional user.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
Shogmaster said:
You know Mr. Smarty-pants, the benches came when G4 was Mac's top of the line stuff. It was to inform workstation buyers of which was more powerful for their Photoshop usage.

Yep, but we're in a TOTALLY different market here. Discussion of benchmarks is irrelevant when talking about consumer-level devices like this possible new iMac.

Shogmaster said:
If performance means nothing to this crowd, then how would they distnguish this $500 Mac with $250 Emachine that BB and CompUSA sells in their crazy deals?

It'll all depend on how they are marketed. If they tie the devices closely to iPods, which I'm sure Apple will, the new machine will sell.

Shogmaster said:
You guys should really think that reasoning through.
iPod never sold on price ratio. They sold on perception of being the best MP3 player on the planet. Is this $500 Mac gonna be the best computer on the planet?

No, iPod sells because to the mass market, iPod is the ONLY digital music player on the planet. No other player is marketed as aggressively. People either simply don't know there are alternatives, or don't care because iPod is the one to have. Which is why Apple needs to emphasize this new iMac as the best way to get the most out of your iPod. And that's exactly what they'll do in their retail stores.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Shog, it's like you're deliberately missing the point.

Like?

$500 + ease of use, for some people, will trump $250 and Windows.

Ease of use, definitely is no different between WinXP and OSX. Welcome to 2001.

Especially when that ease-of-use is interfacing with their iPod.

There's this rumor going around that they make iTunes for PCs. Free too!

Now, I for one think the iPod mini is a waste-- but miniaturization matter to some people, and it is tiny.

Yeah tiny is good. For $160 more, how about this thing? It's really small for a desktop computer! :p

Anyway, what's your motive, Shog? Why do you constantly rag on the Macs?

Steve Jobs ran over my dog.

I know mine isn't the best price/performace ratio, but raw power in a computer hasn't been vital to me (or, I daresay) most users for years now. As I said, my 1.33 GHz G4 runs photoshop fast enough for me, a non-professional user.

Good for you. Really.
 

Dilbert

Member
Shogmaster said:
If performance means nothing to this crowd, then how would they distnguish this $500 Mac with $250 Emachine that BB and CompUSA sells in their crazy deals?

You guys should really think that reasoning through.
I think "those guys" already have, and have expressed it many times in this thread already: a $500 Mac is going to be more stylish and easier to use than a similarly-priced budget PC. It's clearly an overstatement that "performance doesn't matter" to anyone -- of COURSE they want what they have to work well -- but if you've already decided as a consumer that price point is your most important factor, everything else is fair game in a trade.

iPod never sold on price ratio. They sold on perception of being the best MP3 player on the planet. Is this $500 Mac gonna be the best computer on the planet?
It's a clearly ludicrous assumption that they would market this Mac as the "best computer on the planet," so why are you making it? The pitch would likely be, "You know that our iPod is stylish and easy to use...why not get an affordable, stylish, ease to use computer to go with it that is 100% out of the box compatible with your iPod?"
 
Shogmaster said:
Ease of use, definitely is no different between WinXP and OSX. Welcome to 2001.

No, there's a HUGE difference. I posted it above. People don't know how to fight spyware or viruses. They don't have to with OSX.
 

Dilbert

Member
Shogmaster said:
Ease of use, definitely is no different between WinXP and OSX. Welcome to 2001.
Oh come ON. Whether you think the UI design between the two is equivalent isn't the issue. The issue is all of the other hassles that go along with Windows: hardware not being recognized by the system, viruses/worms/trojans, other malware installed via browser, and so on. Compared to the difficulty of maintaining a Windows PC, a Mac is MUCH easier to use for a casual user.

I really think you're just trolling to troll, so I'm going to go do other, productive shit with my day.
 

Phoenix

Member
Shogmaster said:
If performance means nothing to this crowd, then how would they distnguish this $500 Mac with $250 Emachine that BB and CompUSA sells in their crazy deals?

Software. Competing purely on price is the ass-end of the market. A cheap ass $500 mac with iLife is a much more marketable machine than a $300 box sitting in Walmart. The analysts have been talking about volume increase in 2005 for Apple so I suspect that this machine or something like it is in the works (and with Apple flush with cash and no debt they'd be fools not to do it now).


You guys should really think that reasoning through.

Office 2004, Safari, iLife on a cheap mac. Thought it through just fine. Apple knows that there are plenty of people out there who would try a Mac if they were in their price range. The iPod opened them up to new buyers that they haven't been able to serve because $1200+ is too much for many.


iPod never sold on price ratio. They sold on perception of being the best MP3 player on the planet. Is this $500 Mac gonna be the best computer on the planet?

And is the iPod the best MP3 player on the planet? I have two and would still argue that it isn't the best. One of the best, but not the best. Marketing and design pushed the ipod. That's the thing that keeps Apple in business. Its amazing how many people don't realize this.
 
Manabanana said:
No, there's a HUGE difference. I posted it above. People don't know how to fight spyware or viruses. They don't have to with OSX.

You are confusing ease of use and security. So the question is, is security worth the additional cost for the Walmart crowd? I wonder. (seriously, I don't know :D)
 
I've been a computer professional for someting over 14 years now.

Macs are definitely easier to use than Windows machines. As far as I think Windows has come (and oh lord, has it), Macs are easier.

Never personally buying computers for ease of use, I have only just bought my second Mac (the first being a used powerbook 100, great little thing, more than 10 years ago).

But I have lived with enough Mac zealots to be heavily exposed to the machine, as well as the culture. And for years they said "Macs are easier" and I agreed and still bought windows machines.

But really, Macs are easier to use.
 
Shogmaster said:
You are confusing ease of use and security. So the question is, is security worth the additional cost for the Walmart crowd? I wonder. (seriously, I don't know :D)

Doesn't the spyware make it more difficult to use? Maybe it's just me, but closing windows the open out of no where all the time and dealing with slowdowns is more difficult than well, not.
 
Shogmaster said:
You are confusing ease of use and security. So the question is, is security worth the additional cost for the Walmart crowd? I wonder. (seriously, I don't know :D)


If you asked them, no. If they've ever fought a virus, telling them Macs are basically virus-free is a huge selling point.
 
Phoenix said:
Software. Competing purely on price is the ass-end of the market. A cheap ass $500 mac with iLife is a much more marketable machine than a $300 box sitting in Walmart.

But you were saying few posts ago that this market only cares about email, web, and word processing! Which is it? Do they care or do they not? Make up your damn minds! :p

If they don't care, then who cares about iLife?

If they do care, then wouldn't they also care about how fast their machine is with all that stuff? Isn't Photoshop bench really that far from tasks in iPhoto when you are trying to fix all your pics from your 5MP camera? Or editing with iMovie? My mom don't know shit about computers, but she know when she's annoyed by waiting for things to happen in front of one.

Office 2004, Safari, iLife on a cheap mac. Thought it through just fine. Apple knows that there are plenty of people out there who would try a Mac if they were in their price range. The iPod opened them up to new buyers that they haven't been able to serve because $1200+ is too much for many.

This thing is only $300 more than the proposed $500 headless Mac. And comes witha head too!

The fact is, Macs don't sell on price even when it's cheap. Even with that $800 eMac, they are still below 5% Why is that?

It's because Macs sell on perception. Perception that it's worth that extra cost because it's a "high class" computer. A $500 "cheap" stripped down iMac goes against that perception. It's a nasty catch 22 that Jobs cornered himself into a long time ago. Oh well.

And is the iPod the best MP3 player on the planet? I have two and would still argue that it isn't the best.

I certainly don't think so, but that's what the perception is. Not my fault! I've been saying iRiver and other HD music players kills iPods for years! :lol

One of the best, but not the best. Marketing and design pushed the ipod. That's the thing that keeps Apple in business. Its amazing how many people don't realize this.

It also helped that other HD based MP3 players at the iPod's launch all really sucked, so at the time of the launch, it was the best. The perception just got stuck, that's all.
 
Shogmaster said:
But you were saying few posts ago that this market only cares about email, web, and word processing! Which is it? Do they care or do they not? Make up your damn minds! :p


Actually, he did't say that. He said they *wouldn't* care about Photoshop.

I bet the average user would be overjoyed with iLife.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Actually, he did't say that. He said they *wouldn't* care about Photoshop.

Really?

Pheonix said:
Anyone who thinks people are going to do Photoshop benchmarks or anything else other than mail, web, photo album, etc. is an idiot and clearly doesn't understand this segment of the market.

I think he said as much there.

I bet the average user would be overjoyed with iLife.

If they care about that stuff, they might care about the hardware performance on that stuff too.
 
See that little "etc" there? Or "photo album"?


That'd be selective reading on your part.

And for the THIRD time, Photoshop runs fine on my machine, why would it be a problem for a slightly slower machine* to run the less-intense iPhoto? And since when does iPhoto = Photoshop, anyway? What sort of weird stretching and moving of the bar is this, anyway?

* I've already agreed the RAM sucks, by the way. So skip it.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
See that little "etc" there? Or "photo album"?


That'd be selective reading on your part.

We're all guilty of selective reading since you don't reply to my other points, only focusing on this.

And for the THIRD time, Photoshop runs fine on my machine, why would it be a problem for a slightly slower machine* to run the less-intense iPhoto? And since when does iPhoto = Photoshop, anyway? What sort of weird stretching and moving of the bar is this, anyway?

Photoshop ran fine on my 200Mhz Pentium pre MMX too, but they didn't have 5MP cameras going for $200 back then. Try dumping your entire 512MB card's worth of 5MP pics at once with iPhoto, and then doing some batch adjustments to them.

* I've already agreed the RAM sucks, by the way. So skip it.

I never even went there. I even said to Border that you can always add more RAM. It's the ancient 1.25Ghz G4 that I have a problem with for selling in a $500 machine in 2005.
 
Shog, don't try to claim moral high ground. You entered this thread with laughing smileys and scorn, and you've been answered point by point, if you choose to read them. :lol Which point is unadressed?

If it's the iPhoto performance one-- I think you have a point, although I think it's a very minor one. And for all that, I haven't heard any responses to how performance is less of a concern to low-end users than convenience (which includes security). None, except a "good for you."

Well, likewise. Good for you that you kow how to build a cheap powerful PC, and good for you you like to spend time tinkering and tuning it to get the performance un-hindered by the crap the OS leaves on top. Good for you that you can turn that work into computer savings and feel you got the best price/performance. Other than professionals and game geeks, I don't know anybody who cares about price performance over features, included software, or ease-of-use. And for professionals and game geeks, I recommend a Windows PC.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Shog, don't try to claim moral high ground. You entered this thread with laughing smileys and scorn, and you've been answered point by point, if you choose to read them. :lol Which point is unadressed?

Me? Moral highground? :lol

As for the addressed points, How about this one?

"The fact is, Macs don't sell on price even when it's cheap. Even with that $800 eMac, they are still below 5% Why is that?

It's because Macs sell on perception. Perception that it's worth that extra cost because it's a "high class" computer. A $500 "cheap" stripped down iMac goes against that perception. It's a nasty catch 22 that Jobs cornered himself into a long time ago. Oh well.
"

If it's the iPhoto performance one-- I think you have a point, although I think it's a very minor one. And for all that, I haven't heard any responses to how performance is less of a concern to low-end users than convenience (which includes security). None, except a "good for you."

We are just chasing each other's tails at this point since I answered that by saying if performance is no concern, why wouldn't the Walmart crowd just go for a $250 bargain basement PC instead of the $500 iMac (especailly since these folks probably despise computers and only use it to communicate with their loved ones and for work via word processing).

Well, likewise. Good for you that you kow how to build a cheap powerful PC, and good for you you like to spend time tinkering and tuning it to get the performance un-hindered by the crap the OS leaves on top.

All the tweak I do on my PC, you should do on your Macs as well. All I really do differently on my Win2000 workstation then an OEM box is formatting the HD into various partitions, reassigning the OS scratch disc to partition other than the one the OS resides in, and reinstalling the OS every 12 months for efficent performance.

Good for you that you can turn that work into computer savings and feel you got the best price/performance. Other than professionals and game geeks, I don't know anybody who cares about price performance over features, included software, or ease-of-use.

You should get out more then. Plenty of cheapskates out there. Not everyone uses computers out of want. Many do it out of need, and would rather spend as little as possible for the tasks needed.

And for professionals and game geeks, I recommend a Windows PC.

Thanks for deciding for the rest of the populace.
 
Shogmaster said:
Me? Moral highground? :lol

As for the addressed points, How about this one?

"The fact is, Macs don't sell on price even when it's cheap. Even with that $800 eMac, they are still below 5% Why is that?

It's because Macs sell on perception. Perception that it's worth that extra cost because it's a "high class" computer. A $500 "cheap" stripped down iMac goes against that perception. It's a nasty catch 22 that Jobs cornered himself into a long time ago. Oh well.
"

Well, I agree. I'm not arguing that Mac is poised to make a huge mass-market move, although I think this will be a profitable move for them, and some market segment will be happy with it. I don't see where it warrants your initial post on the thread, or any of the subsequent denial of a market for this new Mac.

We are just chasing each other's tails at this point since I answered that by saying if performance is no concern, why wouldn't the Walmart crowd just go for a $250 bargain basement PC instead of the $500 iMac (especailly since these folks probably despise computers and only use it to communicate with their loved ones and for work via word processing).

You've haven't responded that there's an additional value of ease-of-use that would make up for the difference in price. You're trying to define reality instead of responding to it. In your world, why do Macs sell even 5% of the market?

All the tweak I do on my PC, you should do on your Macs as well. All I really do differently on my Win2000 workstation then an OEM box is formatting the HD into various partitions, reassigning the OS scratch disc to partition other than the one the OS resides in, and reinstalling the OS every 12 months for efficent performance.

More than I want or need to do. And for me, not really worth the bother. My machine runs nice and snappy as it is.


You should get out more then. Plenty of cheapskates out there. Not everyone uses computers out of want. Many do it out of need, and would rather spend as little as possible for the tasks needed.


No doubt. They're the one buying the $250 machines and whatnot. But beyond them, II know people who want convenience and ease-of-use in greater numbers than people who want performance. Why is this hard to grasp?


Thanks for deciding for the rest of the populace.

Deciding what for whom? It's not like I recommend Macs to everybody else. WHat exactly are you assuming here?
 
Aside:

Shog's Guide to Popularity

1) Post to thread insulting the perceived readership.

2) Act offended at the responses.

3) Ignore key points of counteraguments!

4) Repeat!

:lol


What an ass.


I'm done.
 

Grifter

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Aside:

Shog's Guide to Popularity

1) Post to thread insulting the perceived readership.

2) Act offended at the responses.

3) Ignore key points of counteraguments!

4) Repeat!

:lol


What an ass.


I'm done.

Bravo. I thought you'd never post that and continue typing out thoughtful but ignored replies.
 
Woo-boy, you Mac guys are way too sensitive! It's like I killed your babies! :lol

And I have no idea where you get the notion that I'm offended! Seriously, I'm enjoying this quite a bit. :D If anything, peeps would say I do the offending. ;)
 

lachesis

Member
Hmm.. it would be pretty attractive if it's some sort of home-media center PC, like MS's been trying to shove...

lachesis
 

Phoenix

Member
lachesis said:
Hmm.. it would be pretty attractive if it's some sort of home-media center PC, like MS's been trying to shove...

lachesis

I have literally been begging Apple folks for almost 24 months for this sort of thing in their developer channels. They want to make a name for themselves in a consumer electronics PC - THIS is the way to do it. Its where PCs are all headed anyways.
 

maharg

idspispopd
I'd just like to point out that I think tying in a desktop to an iPod is about as useful a strategy as tying the GameCube to the GameBoy Advance. That is, neither actually works.

There aren't even that many ipods out there anyways, despite their visibility. If it didn't work for the GBA it surely won't work for the iPod.

Not that I think it won't sell, but I don't think it will sell on some artificial attachment to another device.
 

Macam

Banned
I agree with the last post more or less, but we'll see. I think if Apple wants to expand their market share rather than banking on high margins, this is the type of move that they need to be continually doing, but it's a terribly competitive segment and I think they'll probably end up returning to the smaller, higher margin market segment. Still, if this and the iPod Flash player actually come out, then it's a step in the right direction. That said, so long as Apple continues in the direction they've been following the last few years and continue to be profitable and successful, I don't much care whether the remaining 95% of the market cares to come along for the ride or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom