Slashdot Mirror
Flat-panel iMacs in Apple's Future?
WinkyN writes: "A story on Yahoo! is claiming Apple might release a flat-panel iMac for release in early 2002. Analysts for Morgan Stanley who cover Apple say the computer manufacturer has placed orders for component parts to build such a machine (in fact, build about 100,000 of them a month). Perhaps Steve Jobs will announce this at Macworld Expo in January?"
..it's called an iBook.
But seriously, why would Apple sell such a thing? It would have to be comparable in cost to an iBook, the LCD being the most expensive part.
It would probably be a snazzy box, but would the price be right for a low-end machine?
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Apple can both save on shipping costs and bill their new iMac's as semi-portable...
hell, they're small enough now that with a retracting power cord and wireless mouse/keyboard that they might as well be.
With some depthwise space savings from the removal of the CRT, and the removal of the weight from the glass, they could throw a cord retractor and keyboard/mouse dock on the back of the thing...
Anyhow, it's about time, I think that's going to be a killer machine. (As long as I don't buy an iMac and get a dead friggin pixel in the center of my screen)
Think about what they've done in the past couple years:
Nice hardware, growing in leaps and bounds as the market for those things matures (pc133, yes it was late, and yes, it's slower than DDR, but hey, better than pc100), nice processors, removing all relic hardware as necessary (USB instead of ADB, etc). Apple has always done this. Making the powerbook g4 was the next step, making a laptop just slightly less powerful than a desktop, *AND* has a battery life to speak of.
Nice software: OS X. BSD core. No need for them to figure out how to reinvent the wheel with their crappy old OS's--Simply change a few widgets, and call it Darwin, then add a GUI, and Voila! instant OS. With a *LOT* of software available, not to mention the 20 billion BSD hackers, the people that'll keep the Darwin OS up to snuff.
Totally reengineered interface--Finally a command line that doesn't suck! And for that matter, a GUI that doesn't suck! And multitasking! And all sorts of neat widgets that make techies and non-techies alike scream out "I WANT ONE!"
Giving computers to schools, making great leaps in hardware, standardizing their video system. I see this as a incredibly brilliant move for Jobs.
All in all, more power to them... They may live, they may struggle, or they may die. They are pushing the user's into a whole new realm; DVD-R's in affordable systems, laptops that don't suck, and keeping up with technology a lot better than they used to.
Ex.
Granted, Gateway, HP, etc have come out with flat panel consumer PCs, so the fact that Apple can stir up a bunch of rumor news with a flat panel product may leave some scratching their heads wondering what the big hoopla is. Think about the iPod. Yeah, there are plenty of mp3 players out there, but it took the design team at Apple to create the best one. Apple took their time, and GOT IT RIGHT. The same can be said for the next iMac. It may have the same specs as some other machines out there now, but it'll make everything else look like junk when it comes out. Obviously I haven't seen it, but knowing Apple's track record I'm sure it'll be amazing.
They're going to have to redesign the whole thing if they want flat screens, because the box isn't flat on the front. Either than, or they'll have to make curved-panel displays.
Of course, an iMac box would look really weird without the CRT, because it would be mostly empty, and they probably can't just make the box smaller, because they need vent space. So they'll probably have to come up with a special new shape.
Why does the Slashdot community automatically tear apart everything Apple does?
Actually, aside from a few Windows trolls and knee-jerk, reactionary, anti-corporate drones, I've found the Slashdot community to be fairly supportive of Apple, MacOS X and Macintoshes in general. Articles get posted which are mostly unbiased, except when they are rants against the corporate aspects of Apple. Comments are made by people who seem to mostly appreciate Apple's efforts in the open-source world. There are also admissions made that Apple does have some really cool hardware.
Personally, I don't mind the critics of Apple. If the criticism is fair, unbiased, and open then it is welcome because only good can come from it. On the other hand rants, trolls, and baseless accusations are not welcome, since they are clearly inflammatory and don't contribute anything to the discussion other than to turn people off of the point the poster was trying to make.
Sapere aude!
There are big wins in switching when you make the whole machine. The box size goes down. Shipping cost goes down. Shelf space at retail goes down. Power supply size goes down. It's a bigger win for Apple than for the Wintel crowd.
I'm just surprised that Apple didn't do this before the holiday shopping season.
Sez who? Have you been to a store lately? An iMac cost about the same as a PC and in some cases less.
War is necrophilia.
Apple's failure was not allowing clones of its hardware
:)
I can't think of a worse time in the platform or company's history than during the point that clones were available. It was an absolute mess. Part of the problem was that none of the manufacturers had any interest in actually expanding the market. They just took Apple's best customers while Apple was left to foot the bill for platform development. Clones elminated a lot of the core value of the Mac.
Cloning was in direct conflict with the Mac experience, philosophy and culture. It may have seemed like a good idea on paper (largely people assumed if it worked for x86, it would work for the Mac), but in practice, it just didn't flow right. The platform is undoubtably in a more stable position today.
and they had a fully operational 486 booting Mac OS, complete with desktop and even Quicktime movies with sound
Welcome Mac users, to the wonderful work of IRQ conflicts and COM2.
Controlling hardward and software helps integrate, but not innovate
Actually, just the opposite. Things like iDVD, iMovie and AirPort worked immediately upon introduction (and therefore added value) due specifically to the fact that Apple controlled both the hardware and software.
The fact that Apple owns and maintains its own platform is at the core of its value proposition and ability to differentiate from other manufacturers. It provides choice in the industry.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
It evidently needs to be said again.
The G4 is the G3 with Altivec and SMP. They're the same chip otherwise. The G4 runs Altivec-enabled programs faster than the G3 does. This includes mostly Photoshop.
If you're not running Altivec programs, and you only have the one processor, a 500MHz G3 runs as fast as a G4.
However, FWIW... I have a 400MHz G3. It runs about six times as fast as my P133 on most tasks; that suggests a rough speed equivalent of 800MHz. (For example, it encodes MP3s using BladeEnc at almost precisely six times the speed. Other tasks are similar.)
Working the math, that would suggest a 500MHz G3 should be about a gigahertz or so.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
> Comparing the iMac to a PC doesn't seem to
> do the PC justice just because of the PC's basic
> modular, expandable nature, which you are paying
> for; If the PC were as unexpandable as the iMac,
> it would be cheaper.
I think people also buy iMacs for their expandability, but what they appreciate about the expandability is that it already has great "add-on" software and hardware in it from the start, and adding more software and hardware is easy (drag-and-drop software installs, plug-and-play hardware installs, easy-access expansion doors in the cases). I mean, all of the ports are right there on the side, attractively presented to the user. People who never looked at the back of their PC are looking at the FireWire port on their Mac and going "that's where you plug-in a camcorder or hard drive" because when they do that, it just works. It's already been set up for that before they get the machine.
For example, a non-technical friend of mine gave up trying to add software and hardware to his PC because he didn't enjoy all the work involved, and he was generally always suffering from one problem or another with Windows, anyway, and "didn't want to make it worse". He got an iMac and added a printer and scanner himself, no problem. He adds software all the time. So he actually told me that the iMac's "great expandability" was one of the things he liked about it over the PC, second only to the fact that it crashed less than his PC. Also, I got one "help desk" call from him in the past two years with his iMac, versus one a week when he had his PC.
So to say an iMac is "not expandable" is really looking at it from a PCI board / geek hacker perspective. For many people, it's the most expandable system they've ever used. That's part of why they're still selling more than a million iMacs a year, even in this economy, even with CRT displays in them, even with all the empty MHz you get on the PC side. It really serves the needs of the users who buy them.