Slashdot Mirror
Think Secret Predicts Sub-$500 Headless Mac
eadint writes "I have just read an article posted on Think Secret that discusses a
confirmed $499
Apple box sans monitor. According to the article, this has been
under development for almost one year and may be available towards the
end of 2005Q1. The system is rumored to be based on a G4 with 256MB
of RAM , 40-80GB HD with a combo drive (sorry, no SuperDrive). Although Apple has stated in the past that they have no motivation to
compete in the sub-$600 PC market, this system was based on polls showing that more people would buy it after initial exposure
to the iPod." "Confirmed" seems a strong word, but I hope this is more than wishful thinking.
But please add PCI-slots.
I imagine this (if it will actually exist) would be like the eMac: base model low specs with the combo drive and 256 MB ram, but you can upgrade from there so a Superdrive will set you back an additional $100.
;).
Kind of like the Dell machines that start at $400 or so, then by the time you add on the usual needs (bump up the RAM to at least 512) they come out to $500 - $600.
If this is the case, Apple now has a great chance to gain market share. I've wondered for years what would happen if a headless iMac comes out (since everybody already owns a monitor, why buy a machine with another one anyway?).
If it becomes popular, I wonder if more game companies will go the Blizzard route and dual-release their software for both the PC and the Mac. Hm. Well, I've got an hour before I have to go to work - time for a little Warcraft
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
the price difference between 40 and 80gb hdds is small. The price difference between 256mb and 512mb of RAM is not large.
The average Joe's perception of difference between a computer with 40gb of hdd & 256mb of RAM vs one with 80gb of hdd and 512mb of RAM as huge as a "3 megapixel camera" vs a "5 megapixel camera".
Apple needs to understand that underspeccing their computers to make a few dollars more per unit or to have the price slightly lower, actually costs them more than it makes. It furthermore makes people take Apple less seriously - they keep trying to push their out-of-date computers, *and* they're underspeccing them as if they're old stock or they're trying to cut every cent off of costs.
I seem to remember Commodore having a similar over-priced highend + underspecced low-end strategy.
It would be interesting if it had an iPod dock built in given the target market. I know you can connect a dock via a Firewire cable, but with a built-in dock, Apple could market this baby Mac as an iPod accessory.
This isn't necessarily the right approach. All the folks at Apple have to do is build complete Macintosh systems onto ATX form factor motherboards. System builders all over the world would buy them up and build Apple-compatible computers.
What many people don't know is that Sun actually did this a while back. I have an ATX rack-mount server with a Sun AXi motherboard in it, and it acts exactly like a Sun machine -- because it is a Sun machine. I'd love to see Apple do this.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
It is silly to think that 256 is enough RAM to run 10.3. This 12" came standard with that and I couldn't use it w/o dropping another 512 into it. I think that 512 standard is more logical.
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Don't want to restate the obvious so I will restate what may not be so obvious:
A 1" thick headless unit fits nicely in my A/V cabinet.
Yeah, you heard me - network connection - audio line out (or atleast USB/Firewire for 3rd party)
This is the new Media server for my den.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
While I agree this probably won't happen, putting a G4 into an inexpensive box isn't too far fetched.
1. They updated the iBook to a G4 recently.
2. There is still a G4 in the Powerbook, and probably will be for another round of updates(watch Steve prove me wrong on Jan.11).
3. The eMac is still selling relatively well.
All of this means Apple is committed to supporting the G4 for at least two more OS updates after it stops shipping machines with that processor(based on past history). The 68040 chips were supported through OS 8.1(1998), though they stopped selling them in 1995(~ OS 7.5). PPC chips(60x series) were officially support through OS 9.1(Jan. 2001), though they were last shipped in 1998(OS 8.6).
As much as I love my mother, the cost of administering her PC-- whether in terms of my time or her money-- is outrageous. The value of a secure, stable computing platform was pushing me towards purchasing her a Powermac. If the $499 Mac shows up, I'll skip the Powermac. Instead, I'll buy her the new box and use the savings to buy myself Apple's Remote Desktop software.
this kinda reminds me of this story about the pricing of the original mac. their initial target price was $500, but the final design ended up being around $1,500. Then due to incresed costs and a lame decision by the board, it ended up starting out at $2,500, which prevented them from ever gaining a huge marketshare, which led to all sorts of problems later on.
maybe now with microsoft looking pretty weak with their security problems and continually delaying longhorn, and with the problems intel is having and the rest of the PC market is having Apple is seeing this as a chance to make up for past mistakes and finally sell the "computer for everyone" they originally intended.
I've wanted to switch for 2 years now. I own an ipod, my sister too, my dad also. I spend 10 hours a month removing virii and adware from their windows laptops (I refuse to spend more time). I crave Apple's design, but 1300 USD just to "play around" was a bit steep. The only thing that was stopping me from buying a Mac was price, and the fact that I still play some games sometime (so I can't ditch my PC straight away). If Apple makes this baby, I will buy one, I'll buy one for my sister, one for my mother and I'll convince 3 friends (minimum) to buy one for themselves and their wives. Easily. That's 3000 USD next year on top of the 1000 or so I spent on iPods in 2004 and another 500 I'll spend buying a new iPod in 2005. And I know tons of people around me who are just "turned off" by computers and would welcome a Mac. Now Gimme Gimme Gimme.
This box sounds like Apple's answer to small form factor PC's running Myth or Microsoft's media center software. It's a multimedia box.
There's been a sea change in monitors. Back in ye Olden Days, you had a Commodore 64 using a TV for a display. Fuzzy.
Then came RGB monitors, which cost more than a TV, couldn't be used as a TV, but made computer video output much more usable.
Then the monitors developed into hi-rez monsters. They showed TV better than TV sets showed TV.
But now, lookee: hi-end high def TV's can run 1080i, or even 1080p with a converter. We have consumer TV's that can handily act as a not-bad monitor for a PC.
What's an Apple to do with the situation of Microsoft end-running the entire entertainment industry by making their DRM and Media Center the de facto standard? They take the guts of a iMac and make a cheap Small Form Factor computer for cheap. It doesn't have Bill's virus problem inherent in the OS, and, also, most importantly, it doesn't crash.
Run, Steve, run!
I can tell you with quite certainty that your third potato is quite rotten. While Mandrake is a fine distrobution for x86, it is quite a different OS on PPC. There are power problems, graphic problems, and none of the function keys (brightness, sound) work.
I haven't tried anything else, but that'll show you that just because distros are available for the mac doesn't mean they're worth using.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
One thing I don't get is where are they going to get the head from? The Apple Store doesn't sell any low end monitors (the lowest end being the 1299 20" Cinema Display), and surely they don't expect the consumer to seek a different location for a monitor? So where are they going to get this head, and how much is it going to cost? Would a consumer rather buy a $500 headless Mac and a $100 CRT monitor then a $799 eMac? As an Apple Store employee, this just doesn't make sense to me. Why would they want to sell a $500 computer when the extra cost of a monitor would nullify the fact that it is a cheap Mac? Sure, customers could just use a monitor they already have, but most people when buying a computer expect to get the whole package, and generally have planned uses for older computers. Their planned uses may never come to fruitiion, but that doesn't matter at the time of purchase. I think the idea overall is pretty cool for the geek community, but for the consumer I don't see it. I could certainly imagine selling these at the Apple Store, but it would take up uneccessary space for what would probably be a redundant product.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!