Apple needs to do away with the iMac

[Digital Skunk]

That's my point, just think about what they could do with what they already have? The iMac is here to stay for awhile, with just a few more millimeters and a couple of optional openings on the back i can see several nice options available to keep the line alive for a long time.

To let it all out, I think the iMac is great the way it is. It's selling well (yes because it's the only choice) and most people that do consider it aren't worried about upgrading the innards at all.

I really think Apple just needs to tone down the Xeon/FB-DIMM Mac Pro a notch and bring it back down to the $1499 price range that was available back in the day.... that price range mind you was available with the iMac starting at $1299.

The advantage users got out of it was an all in one machine, or $200 more and an upgradeable tower. Give users desktop quad core chips in a BTO Mac Pro chassis and price it at $1599 and Apple would have a winner.

The iMac doesn't have to loose for the xMac or Mac Pro @ $1599 to win.

p.s. Or give us the choice to strip the Mac Pro down to the ground.... I mean bare bones, no HDD, no RAM, no optical, only the hard to find GFX card of choice and a full install of Leopard and iLife for $1999 on a single CPU machine would be an improvement.

 

[ravenvii]

I have an iMac so I don't want them to die.

They're great machines for what I want.

 

[63dot]

Perhaps this x-mac, whatever it is, will take on the iMac name. The iMac has gone through several major changes, why not x-mac? With the monitor choices, from Apple to others, the new iMac can be a mini tower.

I can envision a desktop line with a quad in the Mac mini, a quad Xeon in the mid-line desktop, and multiple quad Xeons in the Mac Pro.

 

[srl7741]

Well, there was a time when the iMac was made from completely desktop class parts. It was pretty svelte too. Those were the days when owning an all in one ONLY meant that you couldn't upgrade the parts, not that you got laptop parts in a desktop that costs near laptop prices.

Yes, I remember that. However, Apple makes the current iMac so thin that it has to use laptop parts (I guess).

That's my point, just think about what they could do with what they already have? The iMac is here to stay for awhile, with just a few more millimeters and a couple of optional openings on the back i can see several nice options available to keep the line alive for a long time.

 

[iMcLovin]

iMac is a home computer. I´m glad one company understand what that really means. Home, not work, it should look great, fit in a house not nescessarily in a messy office room. The iMac looks beautiful, takes up little space and for most users it´s more than enough power. So, why shouldn´t they sell it ? I want to have a stationary at home in addition to my laptop, iMac is the only option in my eyes. So I disagree of course.

 

[Jeremy81]

I love my iMac and will definitely replace it with another iMac in the future. I know tons of people that don't like laptops that already own or would like to purchase an iMac. I personally think it will continue to be successful.

 

[gjw4u]

Keep/enhance the iMac, enhance the Mac mini, and maybe introduce a new x-Mac. For me the iMac is a great concept, which I hope Apple will stick to.

 

[opeter]

If Steve Jobs goes bye-bye, also the iMac goes bye-bye.

But i don't think this will happen. Why? Because many people think, that a real computer is an all-in-one type of a computer. That's why other companys try to copy Apples iMac.

 

[kitch95]

Me, because the mini was to underpowered for me and the mac pro was to powerful and to expensive. Also I did not need a laptop so there for a Imac fits perfectly.

 

[nick9191]

Seriously why do they work on the iMac.....has to be because of the very first one they made

What?

I ask as
1) who wants an all in one?

Pretty much every consumer I've met has loved it.

You are the niche market, by wanting an expandable box but are not a professional. Dell and HP sell boxes because they are cheap to make, 99% of people do not care about upgrading or expandability. If AIO's were cheaper to make, every consumer machine on the planet would be an AIO.

2) without an iMac, using laptop parts, Apple could finally focus on a real desktop that isn't underpowered like the mini or too capable like the macpro

Again, niche market, no one cares. You may think that this market is huge, but other than the geeks on web forums, no one cares.

Why does apple insist on having the imac stick around?

Because it's the best consumer machine on the planet.

They should have,

Desktop
1) mini
2) xmac or whatever...just not an aio
3) macpro

Laptop
1) air
2) mb
3) mbp

Displays
1) the acd's


Comeon apple, the imac doesnt make sense to me. Why do I need an aio, when I have better screens that I can later upgrade or whatnot down the road without buying a whole new computer? I think apple holds onto the imac for legacy's sake...just let it go PLEASE

Hmm, no.

 

[WeegieMac]

Ah, this again ... comes up now and then on every Apple forum.

There was a leaked "screenshot" on here a while back showing the iMac replaced by a "fat Mac Mini" lookalike.

Personally I don't think Apple is going to force its iMac customers into buying a slightly cheaper headless iMac and an Apple Cinema Display for the optimal performance.

Yes it would allow you to choose your own display, but when I buy Apple I want Apple. Hooking a headless iMac up to a Samsung LCD or a cheap external monitor just reeks of an amatuer set up.

The "i" in iMac is never going to stand for "buy your own display".

 

[lozanoj83]

if (Steve Jobs == alive)
__cout << "iMac is the flagship computer.";
else
__cout << "Maybe an xMac.";

The Macintosh 128k was an all-in-one because Steve didn't want the end-user modifying his hardware.

LOL!!
C++
You sir have just made my night!
LOL!

 

[seb-opp]

the iMac is their best selling desktop, its kinda important

The percentage of PC owners that upgrade their towers anyway is really slim, its not really a selling feature to the majority of people. Sure a tower means you don't have to replace your screen but who would really keep their old screen when they could have a larger or higher resolution screen

I think the only change that should be made is going back to using desktop CPUs. All PowerPC iMacs used them and a new intel one with a desktop quad core or dual core would allow it to better compete with windows towers. Of cause its all down to cooling, hopefully Apple can find a way to do it

 

[Inconsequential]

If its making them money (which im dam sure it is) then it is going no where.

The complaints of a few on internet forums who want a headless iMac with desktop parts isn't really high up on Apples agenda.

If it wasn't selling, they wouldn't sell it. Simple.

Its here to stay.

 

[Sargiel]

Had to reply to this one.

I think iMac's are great. When I was looking to replace my heavily upgraded G4 Powermac I ended up buying the highest spec iMac that I could at the time which has stood me in good stead - and when the time comes to upgrade again I'll be buying another iMac.

I see the argument for having a middle ground between the iMac & Mac Pro however I don't see how it can fail to cause cannibalisation of sales between two excellent and currently nicely differentiated systems. Also when I get my next iMac I'll have a nice big new screen to enjoy.

Also I do game on the mac (which was why I bought the 24" with the 7600GT) and it seems to be a continuing trend for Apple to offer the option of a better graphics chip (currently the 8800GS 512MB) at time of purchase. It would be nice if there were after market upgrades offered by Apple resellers but I'm content that when I want a new machine I'll be able to get the right iMac for me - and that it'll last me for a substantial time. Also my gaming experience on the iMac has been excellent so far. The only game to tax my system so far (2.33 Core 2 Duo, 7600GT, 3GB RAM) is NWN 2 (which taxes any system if you want to run it on decent graphics settings ).

 

[marbles]

Ah, this again ... comes up now and then on every Apple forum.

There was a leaked "screenshot" on here a while back showing the iMac replaced by a "fat Mac Mini" lookalike.

Personally I don't think Apple is going to force its iMac customers into buying a slightly cheaper headless iMac and an Apple Cinema Display for the optimal performance.

Yes it would allow you to choose your own display, but when I buy Apple I want Apple. Hooking a headless iMac up to a Samsung LCD or a cheap external monitor just reeks of an amatuer set up.

The "i" in iMac is never going to stand for "buy your own display".

\
Not much professional about the iMac screen tbh

 

[GilGrissom]

Is the iMac "doing well" for Apple because it's a great product or because it's the only consumer desktop choice? That's a reasonable question to ask.

That's a good question, however whether it is the only real consumer desktop choice or not does not mean that it must be selling based on that point only.

If it was a crap computer it simply would not sell. If people feel that confined and restricted by only one choice that was really THAT RUBBISH surely they would vote with their feet? Which is fine as if that was the case Apple would have to learn pretty damn quick to recover.

I don't think its about iMac protectionism, it's raising very good questions that aren't asked very often which is always a good thing, however it doesn't really offer any groundbreaking alternative to give Apple reason to change. But what do I know? We're all just trying to make sense of this!

 

[WeegieMac]

\
Not much professional about the iMac screen tbh

Ah, that old argument. You're not grasping what I'm saying.

When people buy Apple they want Apple. If they make the iMac headless and sell it entry level £499 or £549, people who do not have a display will need to fork out more, taking the price higher than a current iMac. Some people will have HDMI/DVI/VGA enabled HD televisions, but hooking a Mac up to that just comes across as patchwork and hardly a shiney new all Apple setup to be proud of.

 

[L0s7man]

I like the iMac; and I'm a power user (don't mistake power user with a hardware junkie though!).

The combo I'm thinking about at the moment is 24" iMac + Aluminum MB

iMac to play games (SERIOUSLY PEOPLE PC == MAC; (...) reboot to Windows to play games and reboot back to Mac to do some work; what's the problem?), watch films, do work, etc + Macbook to carry around OS X goodness

And I don't want a desktop, because I'm a student and it's a pain to move around. iMac is one box; I can ship it easily, pack it easily to storage room when I'm away in between uni terms. Seems rather good solution.

 

[Tallest Skil]

iMac to play games (SERIOUSLY PEOPLE PC == MAC; whoever says that there are no games on Mac is a retard and uneducated idiot; reboot to Windows to play games and reboot back to Mac to do some work; what's the problem?)

What's the problem? Windows. I shouldn't have to use it.

And insults are not allowed, so remove this insult directed toward me, please.

 

[L0s7man]

What's the problem? Windows. I shouldn't have to use it.

And insults are not allowed, so remove this insult directed toward me, please.

There are no games on Linux either. But Linux folks either try to do something about it or get on with their lives. I don't see people yammering that Linux sux because you can't play games.

I'm sick of the whole Mac is not PC campaign. It's not ppc vs x86 anymore. It's just the bloody software.

 

[63dot]

Had to reply to this one.

I think iMac's are great. When I was looking to replace my heavily upgraded G4 Powermac I ended up buying the highest spec iMac that I could at the time which has stood me in good stead - and when the time comes to upgrade again I'll be buying another iMac.

I see the argument for having a middle ground between the iMac & Mac Pro however I don't see how it can fail to cause cannibalisation of sales between two excellent and currently nicely differentiated systems. Also when I get my next iMac I'll have a nice big new screen to enjoy.

Also I do game on the mac (which was why I bought the 24" with the 7600GT) and it seems to be a continuing trend for Apple to offer the option of a better graphics chip (currently the 8800GS 512MB) at time of purchase. It would be nice if there were after market upgrades offered by Apple resellers but I'm content that when I want a new machine I'll be able to get the right iMac for me - and that it'll last me for a substantial time. Also my gaming experience on the iMac has been excellent so far. The only game to tax my system so far (2.33 Core 2 Duo, 7600GT, 3GB RAM) is NWN 2 (which taxes any system if you want to run it on decent graphics settings ).

I agree with everything, except the "cannibalisation" theory. It never hindered Dell or similarly equipped company with many crossover lines. More choices is what made the big PC companies big. It only helped them.

Too few choices is not a good idea and it may be why Apple never can quite get or retain a nice market share worldwide outside of some niche industries/categories. While I like anything that Apple puts out, most PC users are astonished at the terribly small computer choice offered by Apple.

 

[-hh]

I agree with everything, except the "cannibalisation" theory. It never hindered Dell or similarly equipped company with many crossover lines. More choices is what made the big PC companies big. It only helped them.

Ummmm....ever heard of a company called General Motors (GM)?


And insofar as more choices = goodness, suggest that you go read the book, The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less (2004; Barry Schwartz).


The bottom line for Apple is that each design proliferation functionally dilutes production efficiency, which effectively increases costs. If you want Macs to remain relatively cost-competitive with PCs, you have to accept fewer options at the current overall market share.


And insofar as the future direction of the iMac, perhaps you'll get a clue if you recall what Jobs said about Intel's strategic direction a few years ago: its not just about improving performance, but performance per Watt (=heat).


-hh

 

[63dot]

Ummmm....ever heard of a company called General Motors (GM)?


And insofar as more choices = goodness, suggest that you go read the book, The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less (2004; Barry Schwartz).


The bottom line for Apple is that each design proliferation functionally dilutes production efficiency, which effectively increases costs. If you want Macs to remain relatively cost-competitive with PCs, you have to accept fewer options at the current overall market share.


And insofar as the future direction of the iMac, perhaps you'll get a clue if you recall what Jobs said about Intel's strategic direction a few years ago: its not just about improving performance, but performance per Watt (=heat).


-hh

So why did Dell do so well, and doing so with many choices? It's not as if they are hurting. Why is it, even in Cupertino and nearby, most people sport Dells?

More may be less in some industries, but look at the huge PC giants. They offer a huge selection.

 

[nick9191]

\
Not much professional about the iMac screen tbh

Because of the panel? The 24" iMac uses an excellent panel that I would easily regard as a pro level panel. And the whole glossy argument is FUD. Yeah clear untreated glass oversaturates colour but a treated matte display is true to colour. If glossy makes colours look more vibrant then it's because matte screwed them up to begin with.