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.
I've never bought an Apple computer because the prices are too high to be an impulse purchase. At $500, though, I would pick one up along with a $50 keyboard/monitor switch and start playing around with it.
Plus, at $500, geeks can afford to buy it and find out if it's easy to get their work done on it. The easier it is to switch my day-to-day work over gradually to an Apple, the more likely I'd be to do it. I'm sure I'll have a couple/few apps that I have to run on Windows, but if you put them both on my desk and let me toy with both, I bet I'd be more likely to run my MS-only stuff on a virtual machine.
Could I get a $500 used Mac with a CRT monitor? Sure, but who wants that big bulky thing around? Instead, give me something I can use with a USB KVM switch, and then I can explore it on my own pace.
What's your damage, Heather?
But please add PCI-slots.
I have asked for such a Mac for years... since they discontinued the cube...
I think it'd be a great decision... lets see how much it canablizes on Power Macs though.
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
I think i would pick one up if I could run the same software as any other macs can run.
I would still keep my PC's, but I would love access to FCP and Motion.
It's all nice and well, but i doubt it will convince many PC users to switch. Mainly because, apart from the hardware costs, you have to keep in mind the costs of new software and also the implementation costs of learning to use the new hardware. I am sure its not that difficult if you can get along with Windows, but it still takes time away from revenue generating work. Still it's a step in the right direction for Apple, let's hope they can eat a bit more into the Windows "monopoly".
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Face it, geeks know the power of OSX but Apple hasn't done a great job of selling why a Mac today is differnet from the Macs of yesteryear. People either have ancidotal stories of how Macs don't play nice with Windows (which was never really true) or they have experiences with Mac-snobs or anti-Mac-snobs that have put them off even giving it a chance.
I recommended we look at replacing some of our desktop machines with eMacs or iMacs as a trial last year and senior management looked at me like I was nuts. "But...But...it's not a Dell! And it Doesn't-Run-Windows(tm)! How will anyone get any work done?"
It's harder to convince senior management to put out $20,000 for a ten box trial, but $5000 is much more palatable
So go Apple! Build your boxes; they'll sell like hotcakes (especially if you make a $700 headless mac / iPod bundle).
The biggest selling point is obviously security. EVERY average Joe computer user I know is compromised with spyware and viruses (especially those with kids). I tell everyone who'll listen to buy a Mac when they're looking for a new PC, because it'll actually work after two weeks of use. It's nice to see that Apple might actually have something affordable for these folks.
www.lonseidman.com
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.
"But, I can build an AMD 87GHZ box overclocked with a gajillion megs of video ram for $1.23 Canadian, why would I buy a Mac?"
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
It is also down to the ipod, apple wants the bigger marketshare and this could be the best way to do it. Since it is supposed to complement an existing system, power shouldn't be an issue either. However people will have a windows mentality and expect a $499 Mac to play DOOM 3 as does some PC's already do. This thing cannot be to slow or to fast.
What might be nice is if this thing is upgradable (other than the usual HD and memory), if one can upgrade an Xserve Gcard then I see no reason for this to be able to. But then the other consumer machines would need this ability, which they won't get as you need to go higher than that and get a Powermac. It would look weird having your lowest and highest models with that capability. I only mention it because it is another feature a windows user might expect.
They need to satisfy their intended market with more than just a low price (maybe?) if they want average pc users aboard the mac train.
Jonathanjk.com
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.
Last summer I read from a south asian government press release that Apple would be working with said government to build a cheap system for use only in that market. I firmly believe this rumored, stripped down machine is for that market.
Here's the press release
The register has this to say about it:5 00_im ac/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/29/sub-
Sounds sensible.
Hook it up to your TV and/or an airport express (or whatever that wireless streaming audio thingamajig is called) and go.
Of course, a standalone DVD player these days costs $50
- with
a monitor for $499. On ebay you can find some pretty nice used machines for under $100.Over $1000 these days is where you can find some really nice machines. But $1000 is no longer the entry point. If you were someone buying your first computer, would you want to plunge right in to a $1000+ Macintosh, or go for a sub $500 PC?
It took long enough for Apple to see this, but they would have to be stupid to ignore it forever. It makes perfect sense to offer an entry point into Apple at the sub-$500 mark. And with the massive amount of cashflow they are getting from the overpriced iPod, they can certainly afford to cut their margins a bit on the low end in order to get the "apple" brand into the hands of the PC using public.
I never really pay much attention to apples, but I love competition in the marketplace, so I hope this is true.
If iPod users invest in this machine, they are quickly going to be disappointed in the lack of games (especially since the spec is relatively low), and find it struggles a bit when they start using large Garageband files. Still, only time will tell. We Slashdotters can, occasionally, be wrong.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
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!
The machines that Apple are selling right now are very comparable with PCs of equivalent spec - it's just that they are VERY full featured, so when you compare the basics it looks like it's more expensive on the Mac side without taking into account the added kit like BT, 802.11g etc.
As for $400, man - will the whining never end? If this $500 machine isn't cheap enough for you, then I'm sorry it's very likely that Apple doesn't want you as a customer.
This sig has been deprecated.
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
If you compare the Mac feature-for-feature to a PC, the price is pretty comparable. You almost always have to "upgrade" the PC to get what the Mac considers standard features. The 'books especially; they've been that way longer than the desktops. The days of paying a premium just to have a "Mac" are over.
Constitutionally Correct
However, better late than never as they say...
PC stands for personal computer. Apple were the first company to provide a personal computer with the apple 1.
AARRARARARGH GOD!!!!!!!!!
I do not believe it.
Apple does the unthinkable - something they have CATAGORICALLY STATED was something they had no interest in, Something that has been asked of them for years, Something that Slashdot users are especially good at complaining about.
They finally release a sub-$500 Mac.
What is the Slashdot response?
"Meh, well it's cheaper but you know... I can get a cheaper box from WalMart so blah blah blah"
Whinypants.
This sig has been deprecated.
Sorry guys, but the story was published on Dec 28th, which is the innocents saints day. I don't know if you celebrate it much on the States (it's a spanish tradition), but in a lot of places it's the equivalent of your aprils fools day. Don't get me wrong, I would love the 499$ Mac, but when something seems to good to be true, it probably is.
For 500 dollars, without a monitor, you can do a lot of damage. I highly doubt Apple would put out a POS if it's being aimed squarely at those customers who are Apple-curious but haven't made the switch yet. That's probably the last crowd they'd want to turn off, and it's conceivable that Apple is willing to make a low profit margin on this one to penetrate the market. Their position is excellent... iPod popularity and Apple-awareness are pretty outstanding right now, this cheap Mac could probably be the key to moving these people over to Macs. I doubt Apple will make this computer junk (which wouldn't be conducive to their trackrecord lately anyhow).
500 dollars isn't cheap-o. I'd guess it'll basically be an iBook in a desktop, which can't cost that much.
Don't underestimate how important Apple might view this computer for their business.
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.
A $500 Mac IMO would be a biggest thing since the introduction of the PowerPC, iMac or iPod. It will rip through the computer world like a wildfire. The unreal power of OS X and a Mac for the price of some nasty thing from Dell? Oh, it's too good to be true. The only thing that would make it better is if it was like the Mac Cube and silent. That would throw the computer world for a spin. Imagine all the uses: small web server farms, MS Windows owners buying one with a KVM to run along side their MS Windows box. Jobs has pull off some pretty stunts and this without a doubt would be in his top 10. I will buy three the first day they come out; one for my daughter (she loves my wife's Mac and hates to share), one for my folks (playing admin for their MS Window's box sucks and one for me to run Ubuntu and MOL (hey, I had a ton of great Classic apps that still do the job).
If someone says they're also bring back HyperCard I'll know it's a dream. If this new Mac is real Mac is back!
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Are you for real?
Why don't you let Apple release a 64-bit OS before you declare the 32-bit G4 and these new switchers "stuck with limited software choices". This is a freaking entry level Mac, not some pro-media editing workstation. It is for people who want to surf, email, IM, listen to music, and open a Word or Excel doc from work. What do they need 64-bit computing for in 2004?
Yeah, it will leave "headless switchers in the dust eventually", but so will a top of the line Apple, or for that matter any PC purchased today. That's just the marketspace.
I am using a 1st generation 400Mhz G4 PowerBook at home and while I wish it had a few of the bells and whistles of a newer system, this thing is totally capable for the tasks i described above. That said, it is my opnionion that the system described by ThinkSecret will not leave any Switcher disapointed in their investment.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
256MB of RAM is NOT ENOUGH to run OSX well. It's odd that Apple, who designed OSX, doesn't notice this and continues to sell systems which start at 256MB of RAM.
The starting RAM size should be 512, with room for expansion. One of the more annoying things they do is offer Powerbooks with 512, but with both slots full (256 in each), so expansion ability is stifled. It actually costs more to get the 512MB in ONE slot.
This is one of the few things that still pisses me off about Apple. The other thing is iBooks and iMacs needing a hack to do desktop spanning across two displays, but that's another rant. }:)
-Z
The only plus needed.
:-(
Apple is known first and foremost for being stupid simple. Hence the iPod's success. You might think it's the advertising and only the advertising. You would be wrong.
If - big if - this rumour is true, simplicity will be its selling point. Virus- and popup free internet for the masses, simple stupid picture viewing and organizing, streaming and organizing your iTunes and CD collection, zone-free DVD, maybe even HDR, and for the moderately seasoned computer users, having a mac in your network - adding to the tv/hifi experience for both Windows and Apple computers...
Don't think mac users are the arty-farty crowd. Most of us just don't have the stomach for half-baked production- or/and fun-environments. Because however you look at it, computers are expensive. I rather spend a premium for a nice experience than even half that to repeat my horrible PC experiences.
The same goes for most every iPod user. KISS rules (not the rock group)...
But I'm not holding my breath for this one
I think, therefore I am...I think.
panther will run on it.
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).
If so I can save myself the 129 bucks and use the normal Apple license model to put it on my G5 and use the headless box as a home/file/web server etc.
This makes this all the more attractive if indeed it does exist.
If they're trying to woo the iPod users, they should provide a built-in iPod dock, and help reduce cable sprawl.
actually they have a single CPU Power mack that sells fro 1400. and a G5 would cut into the sales of the iMac.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
OK, I know this is *incredibly* premature and *highly* speculative, but I was curious about just how this theoretical new "headless eMac" unit might stack up against one of Dell's bottom-of-the-barrel desktop system.
2 004/1229_dt500.html
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/
It's important to note that all of the Dell Dimension 2400 specs are ACTUAL specs, taken just this morning.
For the rumored Apple bottom-feeder CPU, I'm assuming that the hardware specs will be what ThinkSecret claims, that the graphics card will be a GeForce FX5200, and a few other items. I'm also assuming that the software will include Panther, an updated (finally!) version of AppleWorks (just for the heck of it), iLife (minus iDVD), and the other Apple-produced software which normally comes with eMacs/iMacs/iBooks. The major distinction software-wise is that, to keep costs down to a bare minimum, there would be NO third-party software included (ie, no Quicken, WorldBook, or 3rd-party games bundled).
The thing which blew me away was this: The Dell machine--without a monitor--starts at $395. However, this is with a CD-ROM ONLY, and a 90-day warranty only! Adding a CD-RW, DVD, and 1-yr warranty tacks on another $88...except that the standard ground shipping is $99, even without a monitor!! Since $500 is the cut-off, and the system *has* to be shipped one way or another, that means I had to give up the CD-RW and DVD drive and *still* came in $11 over the mark.
I was also surprised to find out the following about the Dell Dimension 2400:
--It has a sucky, NON upgradable, integrated graphics card (though you could use a PCI graphics card instead, I suppose)
--It maxes out at 512 MB RAM!
In short, if TS is right about the specs and pricing, this could definitely stir things up!
The most important thing Apple Computer needs to get to market is a small 1U rack-mountable server in the sub-$1000 price range.
Like, say, if you took a 17" iMac G5, ripped out the display, put it on it's side and racked it...but reconfig'd it so that the ports and slots would be easy to access while in a rack. Give me a single-processor G5 mobo, 2 internal SATA drives, a CD-ROM, a single PCI slot, and a choice of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server, and I'm good to go.
I have visions of Apple Network Appliances dancing in my head..email, DNS, DHCP, Open Directory nodes, web servers, etc, etc. All that nifty infrastructure stuff that doesn't really require a full-blown XServe, but that works great on multiple cheap boxen.
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.
- 4 years old
- running nonstop (over 5 mos. this time)
- running no antivirus software and on a university network
- doing everything their new WinTel machines can, only smoothly (OK I've disabled chat services so they'll get some work done; likewise it is game-free)
- stock, but the heart of a productive video editing set-up (despite a wimpy video card)
- only slightly less snappy than the shiny new G5 in the next rack over, which is rated at over 5 times the MHz (well, until they rip or render).
Panther (10.3) actually sped up the 350MHz iBook w/ 384MB of RAM that I use for field work; even on that hand-crank antique OS X is eminently usable, and wows onlookers (although often it's Quicksilver's functionality that's really causing the eyepoppiing).OS X on a cheap G4 will convert people. The only key issues for me are stock RAM configurations and build quality.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Apple produces "PCs" - Personal Computers. Its become a generic term for a Wintel based computer, but they produced the FIRST PCs!, I've got an old beige mac on the shelf here that says right on it "Power PC".
If you remember your geek history right, in the late 70s, early 80s the whole point of Apple was to produce computers normal people could afford. The mac and the snazziness came later, but the Apple Is and IIs were cheap compared to the alternatives (if there were any). Hell, the first apples sold for $666, I wouldn't advise using this price considering the current political climate, but something in that range would be very competitive.
I would love it if they would put out a nice little machine like this for the Web/Email crowd that will never produce a home movie, mix their own music, etc. A nicely priced secure box for the non savvy if you will. I've got a ton of people I know that ask me from time to time what computer to buy. The response after I mention a Mac is "they are so expensive, and I saw a dell in the paper for $400, the cheapest mac is like $1000." Believe me, these are people that will surf the web, play solitare, and write a letter or two. That's it.
Make a cheap mac for these folks. Be blunt about its limitations, but put it out there.
P
-- My dog can beat up your dog.
Could you cluster a few of these things together...and run the mac server version of OSX? Just thinking off the top of my head with no research yet...but, might be interesting. And at this price...easily affordable.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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 just want to warn everyone that OS X is addictive. That $500 box will give way to a dual G5 tower very soon. They are just giving you the first hit cheep.
Crushing my karma one post at a time.
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.
yes. a lack of viruses and spyware and ease of use.
I see your point. these will never catch on.
end sarcasm.
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!
..my notion of Steve Jobs being a carefully observing computer geek / visionary and top-notch manager in unison.
This is exactly what Apple has to do in order to expand into the gap that MS is leaving behind by slowly but shurely trickeling out of the corporate workplaces. A Sub-500$, low power computer that comes shrinkwrapped with OS X is all it takes to migrate even more people who hate MS (everybody exept gamers) to their plattform. Right now the only alternative for modern micro systems is to get some cool Mini ITX or XPC and spend 20 days trying to get Linux running on it satisfactory.
With a move like this Apple would put it's foot down and make a clear statement for the 100% OSS-ready appliance market.
As I said earlier, this is the next logical step needed to share he market between OSS and all-in-one-package providers. Which Apple essentially is. If this is going to happen, my next file-and-mail server is going to be a mac aswell.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
If you look on ebay the price of Mac Cubes are nuts. A typical Cube (now what, four years old?) sells for $500 to $700 and has atleast 40 bids. I have to wonder if someone at Apple finally realized the Cube was a very cool machine and cancelling it was a mistake.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
There is a market for these, and you've spotted it - the teeming masses who will use it for email and nothing else.
But, the whole point of Apple's biggest marketshare success was that Steve Wozniak was a tinkerer, and made a box that was easy to tinker with! Do you remember when people made 3rd party cards for Apple IIs and Apple actually encouraged that? There were all kinds of cool hacks, alternate vendors for stuff, (hard drives! floppy disk controllers, RAM cards, modems, and so much more).
Moreover, businesses used them because they were capable of running spreadsheets, and there were no alternatives then (IBM's original PC wasn't even made yet!), and the Apple II kicked everyone's ass in terms of expandability and 3rd party software.
It was Steve Jobs who made the Macintosh into a strictly defined device (he often made the "toaster" analogy - computers would be consumer items like toasters - no need to tinker with it!). Jobs never really understood the psychological mindset of the folks who made the Apple II such a success (more successful in terms of business market penetration even than any Mac since) - that people WANT the ability to hack a computer, even if they never use that ability.
When presented with two computers - one with expandability, lots of 3rd party vendor accessories, and the second with limited hardware, only for use with the original vendor certified parts, then most (not all, but most) will choose one with the ABILITY to use more features, even if they NEVER ACTUALLY USE THAT ABILITY. That's the "consumer" hacker mindset, and Jobs never "got" it in the same way Wozniak instinctively did.
Just my two cents.
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
Don't Die Wondering
no way apple will lower prices, as they have highest margins in the PC world
That's not the concern it used to be. They have one of the hottest gadgets in recent memory with the iPod, and they make as much on that as they do with some of their computer line. They can afford to take a hit in profit to build up user base. It's called a "loss leader".
a clone mac was tried last year and it failed.If by "last year" you mean "1994", then you're correct. And they failed for a whole host of reasons, the least of which is that Apple killed OS licensing in 1996.
Besides,with bittorrent taking up 35% of net use,apple software would be canabalized and freeYou've never installed OS X, I take it. There is no serial number registration, there is no unique identifier for the disc. You can use the same disc to install OS X on any number of computers and they'll all work just fine. Illegally, but fine. :-) Apple doesn't think everyone in the world is a thief and lock you into DRM hell (okay, the iTMS is the exception. Compare their DRM to WindowsMCE, though). Look at the DRM that's packed with an iPod: a brief note exhorting you not to steal.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
You're kidding, right? I admit I'm browsing at +3 but I haven't seen a single negative comment yet. So if there are "whinypants" amongst us they are being moderated into oblivion.
System builders all over the world would buy them up and build Apple-compatible computers.
Let me know when Microsoft starts giving away Windows for free with a bundled software suite, because Apple subsidizes their sofware R&D from hardware sales, so if they drop their hardware margins you don't get software.
Would you really be happier if you could get an ATX Mac Board and then had to go to Staples to put down $129 for OSX and $49 for iLife, and whatever for Appleworks, Quicken and whatever else they're bundling these days?
Maybe if you were just building a linux system, but that's such a small market segment Apple can't orient their business around it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You're not exactly currect.
1. Apple has long expressed no interest in selling such a machine.
The article mentions this and explains why Apple still may do it.
2. A new G4 desktop system in Spring of 2005? No chance. Apple is moving away from the Motorola G4 archetecture, in favor of the IBM G5. The eMac and the current laptops will probably be the end of the line for the G4.
INCORRECT! Motorola has announced that they are working on dual-core G4's that scale to 2 GHz, with 64-bit extensions, and only 25w power output. They've also announced single-core G4's with 10w power output. The G4 is not dead, and a dual core 64-bit G4 would be PERFECT for a PowerBook.
3. The current G4 eMac is $800, and their margin on it is thin (by Apple standards.) This rumored system is pretty much a G4 with the $100 monitor removed. No way Apple sells it for $500.
You're forgetting that the eMac is due for an upgrade soon. If they release an updated, faster eMac this January, then they could release this system for $500.
4. Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar. You can already buy a headless G4 Mac for under $600. Just go to eBay and buy an old G4 tower from about two years ago. Hell, for that matter, you can buy an old G3 tower which will run OS X just fine for about $300. Add a $100 CPU upgrade, and there's your G4 right there.
Not exactly. There's a few reasons not to do that. BTW, right now I have a PowerBook, but no Mac Desktop. If I could get one for $500, I'd seriously consider it.
Now, look at your suggestion. If I ran out and bought an old G3, then added a $100 CPU upgrade, bam, I have a good speed G4 system.
But wait! The system still has a sucky bus speed, slower RAM, and a small hard drive.
Oh well, I'll live. So NOW, because this computer is way older than Mac OS X, I have to go out and buy Mac OS X for $129. Oh, and don't forget, an extra $49 for iLife. AND some extra money on AppleWorks (don't remember the price!) Thats more than an extra $178 on the software I would get FREE with anything from Apple.
So now this system costs over $570, and still has slower memory and a smaller hard drive and lack of Airport Extreme support you'd get in a system from Apple. Plus the fact that it may have been abused since I would have bought it used, AND that there's no warranty...I'd take a $499 G4 from Apple, please.
While this article should've spawned positive discussions on this new Mac's possible uses, it pros and cons, it has partly turned into flamefest where people get trashed for say something less than "MS Windows XP is number one."
It's about a new Mac and a new direction for Apple, nothing more.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
... The MarijuanaMac. You'll get hooked, and next thing you know you'll sell your car and tv and drop $2000 on the HeroineBook. By the time Tiger comes out, you'll be sleeping on a mattress on the floor of an empty apartment with broken windows and no heat. Just remember, you won't be able to use your Mac once the power company cuts you off.
----- "All right. It was a miracle. Can we go now?"
http://www.apple.com.au/server/clustering_resourc
good start point for further research...
Not on that machine, not until a particular project is finished next month. Always update between major projects. It's a calculated risk, and easier to make when you're 'flying under the radar' on an alternative OS.
used the trademark phrase of "snappy"
OK, busted. The dual G4 is right at the edge of what I consider a responsive GUI, and not always snappy (eg. when rendering). The G5 is 'snappy.' Your 'greased-pig' dig is gratuitous: I make no silly speed claims for old gear, other than admiring the speed-up in 10.3 and the longevity of Apple's kit. For the record, I like working on Macs, but only in comparison to XP or a less-than-perfect Linux install, and I'd still be running W2K on my admin machine if it didn't require constant fiddling with security. Computers are a looong ways off from what I want, have wanted for 20 years, and Apple bears most of my ire in that respect since they lead the pack in many design directions.
To return to the point: a G4 will be fast enough for the average user if RAM is adequate.
Damn those pesky terrorists
That's pretty much what this would be, actually.
Take an iBook, lop off the LCD, scrape off the keyboard and speakers, and replace the 4200 rpm laptop hard drive with a 7200 rpm full-size one...voila! Identical specs to what they're describing here (even down to the ports/power supply, if you check AppleInsider.com).
Plug PC into mac. Plug mac into existing keyboard, mouse, monitor.
The pass-through should also include ethernet, just to cut down on cable clutter.
You could easily make a simple physical "mac/not mac" switch on the front of the machine (next to the drive & on/off buttons).
I would buy one. I might buy two.
You know what would rock on this thing; TV Out.
Instant media centre, webtv, basic games box. Get MAME on it and your set.
1. Apple might decide to make less money and go for some market share. At worst they'll break even, at best they will win a lot of converts. Cheap is good for Apple. 2. Even if the $500 Mac is 1.25GHz, that's more than enough for almost everybody. I can still run the newest OS X and Photoshop on my PB G4 400mhz with 384MB of RAM. I do design work on this thing. It's not fast, but it's still plenty POWERFUL. 3. There's plenty to differentiate between Apple's product lines already. Even between a $500 headless Mac and the eMac, the big differentiation is THE FORM FACTOR. Believe it or not, most people who buy the eMac actually like having it all-in-one and will still buy it even if it costs more. Schools are the big one here. 4. Small PCs are big now. People are putting PCs in places that they never went before, the kitchen, the bedroom, installations, on top of the TV. Small is a growing niche and it will sell on this alone. 5. Go fanless and you never go back. Silent computing is the biggest trend to come. Everyone I know who bought a fanless iMac or nearly fanless laptop has sworn to never buy a computer with a fan again.
I often go into the Apple Store at Tyson's here in DC. I oogle the 30" flat panel and dual 2.5 PowerMac. I have the means to buy it, if I could justify it. Alas, a Mac can't run a number of very important applications necessary for my work as a Software Architect (e.g. Rational Enterprise Studio). Therefore, my big computer dollars must be directed towards a PC. I notice on my visits that others are oogling the same way I am, but have the same frown -- too much money for a secondary machine. Lump those folks in with the hip younger crowd who really want the fanciness but can't afford it. Put a $500 machine in front of us and we will snatch it up. The luscious user interface and smooth integration with digital cameras and my iPod. Yummy. They are gonna sell like hot cakes even at $799.
One might say this analysis is flawed due to the eMac, but let's face facts the eMac is ugly. It lacks the sexiness of the PowerMac or iMac. It is built for school children and lacks the sophistication that we all want as adults. A sleek, cost-effective Mac will sell very well. Furthermore, if they offer a few well targeted upgrades, they will lure folks like me to turn the little $500 computer into a $1200 souped up mini-workstation.
Where can I place my pre-order?
Q-Eighty-Eight sounds a bit like "You Idiot"... perhaps that's the joke that's going over our heads?
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
This isn't really being positioned as a computer; this is the world's biggest iPod accessory. j
The something is that Microsoft is the only target. While as described, only a drooling tard would pay twice as much for a Windows Media Center of inferior performance deliberately DRM broken with a G5 Mac pizzabox which Just Works as the other choice, I can think of a rapidly expanding niche market that this box would be ideally suited to attack.
The market is, of course, the Linux desktop for the non ubergeek user.
I've put the last year into learning the Linux desktop, and paid for it in part by writing Linux tutorials for publication. In part, I've been doing this because it looks like the market for people who know Linux is expanding rapidly in the places in the world I want to go. (the EU and Canada, the US politicians seem to be bent on destroying the ability for non-corporates to do technology R&D because the Hollywood content cartel wants it that way)
The main advantages of desktop Linux for the non-fanatic are:
The difference between cheap commodity x86 hardware and low cost high-quality Mac hardware is one most of us can probably live with.
The difference between It Just Works and the fun and games involved with adding new hardware and software to a Linux box is also something all of us but the hard core fanatics can live with. While the automated installer tools like apt-get/synaptic are probably as good as anything Apple sells and far better than anything Redmond ever imagined, it's really too bad that outside of the apps bundled with distributions, there isn't a whole lot that you can install with them.
Throw in the much larger number of applications which actually work and meet user needs available on the Mac platform and there aren't a whole lot of reasons to go with Linux as an alternative to Windows given a low-cost entry-level Mac platform which will probably physically break a lot less often than an eMachine or a Dell.
Don't tell me about the wonders of Open Office Writer and other FOSS apps, since I live in the real world, the "minor compatibility issues" get a lot more serious when I'm submitting copy to editors who run MS Word on Windows boxes. GIMP vs PaintShopPro? The only reason I can run Linux on my primary workstation, i.e. the box that helps me make a living is that Win4Lin(WHICH IS NOT FREE) works far better than WINE does, and therefore, I can run just about anything Windows in a Windows window over my copy of Fedora Core 2.
So what would a Linux box on a cheap x86 platform do for a user that a low-cost Mac doesn't? Break more often? Cause a user trying to install something or make it work after installing to spend lots and lots of time on the Web?
As for "looks a lot like the future", imagine yourself as an enterprise CIO who's sick of paying MS tax and paying to fix the endless series of major software security problems with MS and buying cheap commodity PCs that constantly break who gets pitched Apple quality, OSX, and a chance to reduce in-house support staff at the same time. With the other option being a consultant group pitching FOSS and saying "well, some of your boxes will support Linux, we'll have to see".
I've been investing time in Linux because I see a world evolving beyond MS's product line and I want to be one of the people who can explain it and fix it for a world full of Linux newbies who just bought or had corporate get them Linux boxes to replace their aging XP machines. A *nix OS that does everything Linux does, only better, puts that plan in question.
I'm putting my planned x86 hardware upgrade on hold until I find out if this is for real or not. If Apple can compete at the low end, Linux desktops may not have mu
Tech Public Policy stuff
Secondly, Motorola is going to spin off their chip division as Freescale Semiconductor. They've recently released a new G4 rev with a number of new features included an upgraded bus speed.
Finally, IBM has a number of high performance G3 PowerPC chips to which the PPC970's AltiVec unit could be added, such as the 750CX, making a G4-like processor which could be used to replace the current Motorola G4s.
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!!!
Higher res screen, independent external display, PC card slot (except on the PB12). I don't think the iBook has FW800, and it may not have 1000BT. I don't know if the ibook has the superdrive either.
AppleInsider also has their own version of this rumor with slightly different details, and MacOSRumors has been reporting tidbits for the last year. These three sites have a startlingly high degree of accuracy in their rumor reports. When these three sites all agree on the basic concept, you can pretty much consider it "confirmed."
Usually when they appear to be "wrong" about something, it's the result of Apple holding off on a product announcement for some unforeseen reason. Barring those cases, you can bet if these sites are reporting it, it's in the works.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I'd love to have one of those babies to sneak into my employers network to host my development hacks and scm repositories. Being somewhat familiar with bsd roots of OSX, I am currently hacking on FreeBSD but there are much more binary distribs on OSX for app's I'd like to work with.
..... :]
I't would be great to have these boxes in other applications like at my family restaurant and bakery. I could build a very low cost Recipe, scheduling, POS... system and all running Obj-C, Python, Java, JavaScript
Let it be, let it be...
JsD
Apple shall nevah make a low-end product just as BMW shall nevah stoop to competing with Saturns
Or some such. You know what I'm talking about.
But the fact is, Apple's now an mp3 player company that happens to sell a tiny number of computers, too. And they're nice computers. I sure like ours. But if it or Wall Street thought iPods would translate into Powerbook or PowerMac sales, they were dreaming.
iPods might translate into sales of inexpensive headless boxes, though. They might if you can say, "Well, that cheap-ass Dell is no deal when I can get a decent machine for the same price." And it might work on impulse terms, too, especially if Apple builds on the kind of this-is-an-iPod-styled-computer metaphor it used in the introduction of the recent iMac. Oddly and ironically, you'd be accessorizing your iPod with a new computer. Hell, why not? Paradigms shift.
Then again, maybe the Pinth-Garnell set is right, and Apple will never stoop. But Jobs is shrewd, and the economic forecast for USA, Inc., is gloomy and getting gloomier. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to stoop!
I've been egging my boss for two years to get new Macs for my department (weekly newspaper production) to replace our current setups (two PM G4 400Mhz, one PM G3 300MHz and one PM 6500 120MHz) and, being a traditional penny-pinching publisher, have gotten little more out of him than a pair of new mice and a smattering of software upgrades (Quark 6, FontAgent Pro).
G5s are way out of his price range. Even the discounted PM G4 1.25s (while they were still available) were rejected because buying three meant spending in the neighborhood of $7K.
As long as these $500 boxes can be upgraded to at least 1 GB RAM and can connect to a VGA monitor, my wish for new hardware this year may come true.
I bought my home system in March '03 (dual 1.4GHz) and at the time that was the fastest Mac on the planet. A single 1.25GHz ain't no slouch if you have to work on a 400MHz G4 all day. I feel sorry for the guy running Quark 6 & Photoshop on the G3 300, that's cruel & unusual punishment.
YYoouu''rree rriigghhtt.. II mmaadee mmyy oowwnn KKVVMM sswwiittcchh oouutt ooff ssppaarree ppaarrttss aanndd II ddoonn''tt sseeee aannyy gghhoossttiinngg aatt aallll..