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.

Comments

Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[Brento]

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.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[CrackedButter]

You already mentioned it, you get the kool aid, now shut up and wait for it! :)
Seriously, you can get linux for a mac and with a cleverly designed box. As this iBook gets older I might put linux on it, because at some point it isn't going to handle the newer os'es (Tiger already needs a 64meg gcard).
In anwser to your question, Linux at this stage doesn't have the more mainstream windows apps that the mac has. Thats an added bonus because you have that compatibility bonus without the day to day hassle of a windows machine..

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[Nexum]

A lot of things about the Mac experience is unqquntifiable - that is, I can't draw you a graph based on fact that shows you a heap of things better on the Mac platform. Instead the best anyone can do is explain that, the GUI at least, is just so much better than anything else they've ever used.

That's certainly true for me. It's a mixture of thousands of small things - spring-loaded folders; labels; the application install process (or lack of); the dock (yes I like it); the way windows show you where they are coming from and where they are going with neat effects - this actually helps subconsciously build a better understanding of where your stuff is on screen and where it's gone to; beautiful icons; running a beautiful fullfeatured OS that runs MS Office, Photoshop and more but not being Windows; the way aliases (shortcuts) automatically update; the way searching is faster (there's a reason why the search functionality in Windows is called "Search", and in OS X it's called "Find"); the sheer "fit and finish" that goes into the GUI - NEVER will you have a busy or hung application that displays white contents when you drag something else over it, OS X stores the contents of a GUI app in a different way so that even when the app is hung it can be nicely moved around; the way you can Command-Click on any GUI element such as a scrollbar, and you can use it without forcing it to the front; the way you can close application windows without closing the app; the instant sleep instant wake function; bloody fantastic bluetooth support; seamless integration with Windows networks.

There's so much more, especially the little things, there's nothing bigger :)

And on top of all that it's built on a Unix foundation so, you have great things working out of the box, Apache can be turned on with the ticking of one easy to find check box - and BANG it's serving your "Sites" folder. Not to mention the security.

Well, just try it, ok :)

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[Nexum]

Tiger does NOT need a 64 meg graphics card. I am running it on this PowerBook with a 32MB card, and I would not be suprised at all to have it run on something even weaker.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[Randy Wang]

Speak once and it shall be revealed:

One potater, two potater, three potater four. All as healthy and mature as any linux distribution, but it's not like most would ever buy a Mac just to run linux.

Unless this is another of those "just cause I can" things. :-)

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[peragrin]

I made part of the switch at the end of thanksgiving. other than the transprancy I don't notice much of the cool effects anymore.

I still have a Dull running Windows for games, but have pulled all my document, data, movie, and audio files to the Powerbook.

OS X has the most of the features of *nix yet it has very few of the down falls(drivers, okay that's all I can think of).

I bought a lightweight portable computer. It's now very common to see me next to the fire place listening to music and surfing the web for hours at a time. The 4-5 hours of battery life is great. I am getting roughly 4 hours of wireless web surfing. slightly less if I start playing videos. Of course I have also downloaded AND burned a knoppix disc wirelessly and still had two hours to go web surfing with. If Burning a CD isn't power intensive I don't know what else could drain the system.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

Bummer. I've wanted this for a long time as well, but seeing the positive response from slasdot it must either 1) not be true or 2) be a horrible move by Apple that will lead to bankruptcy. Is it possible that Apple forecasting could be as simple as: "expect the opposite from what the Slashdot community predicts/wants"? As has been said numerous times before... Slashdotters are technically proficient, but almost by definition out of touch with mainstream computer users.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[HeelToe]

I guess the eye-candy wears off after a while as you said.

For me as a developer, I find I am much more productive under Mac OS X. The OS almost entirely "just works," has the MS Office apps I need to collaborate with staff and clients, and I can mostly just focus on my development without chasing down dependencies in this lib or that to get this feature or that working. I was never able to avoid being a "tweak" while running Linux or FreeBSD to do development. Mac OS X has freed me from that, thankfully.

Comparing it to Windows-based development, I spend 1/100th the time chasing down system problems that keep me from development work. Under Windows, it seems like I'm always fighting some stupid problem with dll hell or just the windowing system or underlying kernel breaking and wasting hours (sometimes days) at a time.

The most time-draining thing Mac OS X has caused me to waste time on so far was about 2h to figure out postgresql not getting enough sysv shm. That was solved by a few google searches and a grep through /System/Library and /etc for where to make my changes.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[bjb]

At $500, though, I would pick one up along with a $50 keyboard/monitor switch and start playing around with it.

I don't want to discourage anyone from doing what you describe, but you might want to avoid the $50 KVM switch.

Sure, back in the old days I used a $30 physical A/B/C/D switch for VGA connections which worked fine with my Amiga (15kHz) and VGA (31kHz), but as soon as you crank the resolutions and frequencies up, the cheap KVMs don't hold up.

If you want to do it right, you need a good KVM. Specifically, you need to look at the specs of the device, and how high a bus rate it can handle; this makes all the difference in your display quality. Personally, I use a Belkin OmniView 4-port PS/2 & USB device (vendor page here) which has worked great for me. You can get it cheaper, and despite what I found on pricegrabber about the device (reviews), I have had no problems. Unfortunately, it doesn't QUITE end there, though. You still need cables, and you can't get away with cheap cables; you should really go with the ones that Belkin sells, since they're up to spec. I tried the $15 cables, and your screen ghosts pretty bad.

In the end, total cost for the 4-port KVM I bought? With 2 sets of high quality cables and another set of cheap cables, I ran nearly $190, though I probably could have done better by going online. YMMV.

(note: I don't work for Belkin and have no particular love for the company, its just that I did a little research and found this to be the best product circa early 2002)

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[ePhil_One]

wait for this lower cost workstation

This thing ain't no workstation. Most likely its a "Media Center" with PC capabilities, a place to centralize all your iPod songs, load your iPod, browse the web, edit a document in Office:Mac 2004, sync your cell phone via Bluetooth, etc. So few people really need the heavy lifting of a 3+ Ghz computer.

Heck, the lack of constant spyware invasions are enough to make me think I'd be ahead of the game replacing a few relatives PC's. Those 3-hour spyware removal missions get annoying every three months

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[Golias]

I'm betting it's nonsense, though.

1. Apple has long expressed no interest in selling such a machine.

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.

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.

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.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[MikeXpop]

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.

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[austad]

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.


While this may be true, just look how long it took them to move away from the G3. The G3 came out in 1998 or so, and they didn't retire it until the end of last year. Even though G4's were available, they kept a G3 line alive for a damn long time. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the G4's around for another year or more. They have to have something they can call low-end....

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[INeededALogin]

"spring-loaded folders" - I think those are annoying.
Turn them off.

"the application install process (or lack of)" - (lack of) a central location to add/remove software from your computer.
Drag the application to the Trash can. Done. True, you have support libraries in the /Library folder that may be orphaned, but this happens in every OS, and is probably better to leave behind(they don't take up that much space

"the dock (yes I like it)" - I don't. You can't see your application titles unless you mouse over them. What if you have 6+ Word docs open?
Use Expose after you get to the document(I can't believe expose wasn't even talked about yet, or Cmd+` to cycle through you apps

If Mac's had a way to turn off the Scale/Genie effects entirely, I wouldn't mind at all.
It can be turned of very simply. Apple Logo->Dock->Dock Preferences

The only way to close a Mac app is to Control-Click it on the dock, and wait for a menu to quit the application
Apple users abuse the hell out of hotkeys. cmd+w to close a window, cmd+q to quit the application. if you get really happy, cmd+tab+q+tab+q etc... to close all the applications.

I just need a computer to get my work done, IM my friends, and maybe read some original and witty jokes
You sound like Apple's target audience:-D

Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

1. Apple has long expressed no interest in selling such a machine.

Any that means they never will?

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.

Two words: PowerBook, iBook.

Well, a few more words: G4 isn't going any time soon, as they will still be using them for the PowerBook and iBook for a while longer. They have even said themselves not to expect a G5 laptop any time soon. So even though they may upgrade the eMac, there is no reason to believe they won't base this rumored machine on a G4. Especially if it's designed to be a small, bottom end machine. I mean, if it's good enough for their top-end laptops, then surely it's also good enough for their bottem-end desktop?

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.

Unless you know the cost of the hardware for each of these machines, it's pretty hard to go by the price of the eMac.

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.

Utter BS. How can you possibly make such hardline judgements about complex things like purchasing decisions? For starters, not everyone even likes to buy 2nd hand, let alone that fact that a G4 tower will probably be much bigger than this thing.

If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[rseuhs]

Also the G4-design suggests fanless (or at least very quiet) operation, so it would be a real nice machine for office work or internet surfing.

But please add PCI-slots.

Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[boaworm]

Just out of curiousity, what are you going to use those PCI slots for ?

There is already NIC, Firewire, USB, Sound and Video cards onboard. I've had several macs, and i've never installed a single addon card in any of them.

The only thing i've ever come up with was to use one as a firewall, in that case a second NIC would be desirable, but otherwise?

Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[BasilBrush]

There's no chance of PCI slots. Even the iMacs don't have PCI slots. This device is rumoured to be only an inch and a bit thick. Other than the Powermac range, and specifics like Airport cards, Apple expansion is via USB peripherals.

But if you want to use it for office work or internet surfing, it's hard to see why you'd want or need PCI anyway.

Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[martinX]

This is not the machine you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[red_dragon]

More Firewire DV and audio stuff:

ADS Pyro A/V Link
Avid Mojo
MOTU 896HD 196kHz Firewire audio interface

Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[Large Green Mallard]

And none of those have OSX drivers. So while PCI is undoubtably handy, this is not the computer for you :)

Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it.

[ArbitraryConstant]

" Just out of curiousity, what are you going to use those PCI slots for ?

There is already NIC, Firewire, USB, Sound and Video cards onboard. I've had several macs, and i've never installed a single addon card in any of them.

The only thing i've ever come up with was to use one as a firewall, in that case a second NIC would be desirable, but otherwise?"

Uhg... I hate it when people say that.

To most people, PCI slots don't matter. To a minority, they do matter, and to that minority, the lack may prevent them from buying a Mac. In my case, I have a tendency to upgrade older machines and move them into a server role as I replace them on the desktop, and this is not possible with the inexpensive Macs being discussed in this article.

For example, consider my current firewall/server machine and the upgrades I have done, relative to an iMac from the same time period. It's a Pentium 2 400 mhz from 1997 or so.

-Add another NIC so I can use it as a firewall... impossible on the iMac.
-Add an SATA card... impossible on the iMac.
-Add a 160 gb hard drive... impossible on the iMac as the ATA controllers of the time could not handle drives bigger than 128 gb.
-Use the drive at full speed... impossible on the iMac because the ATA controllers of the time were limited to ATA-33.
-Now using 2 hard drives... impossible on the iMac.
-Upgrade the second NIC to gigabit... impossible on the iMac. Impossible on current iMacs too.
-Upgrade the USB to USB 2.0... impossible on the iMac.

It's not that Apple computers don't have all the spiffy ports, it's that they can't be upgraded later on when the definition of "spiffy port" changes.

People usually argue that enthusiasts like myself should be buying PowerMacs, but the whole point is that a $500 PC is just as capable of doing these things as a $2000 PowerMac. PowerMacs have many benefits, but you pay for a lot of benefits that you don't need to buy the one benefit that you do.

Great!

[Zo0ok]

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.

Re:Great!

[mrpuffypants]

I know how silly it is to expect people to actually read the articles around here, but:

Sources familiar with the product cautioned that the low-end Mac will be marketed towards a totally different audience than those who traditionally buy even a $799 eMac. "This product is not going to be about performance," said a source close to Apple. "This is going to be the basics, but with just as much of a focus on software as any Mac could ever be."

Entry-level Computer: The new MyMac (or whatever)
Workstation for Pros: The PowerMac G5

I don't see how hard it is to realize that they have two vastly different target markets that don't overlap that much; some people will want the experience of using Apple Mail and Safari while others need 8GB of RAM for Photoshop.

Almost certainly upgradeable

[Dark Paladin]

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 ;).

As long as it isn't crippled software wise...

[mobiux]

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.

Re:As long as it isn't crippled software wise...

[BasilBrush]

There's no reason why it wouldn't run any MacOS X software. But with what you've got in mind, you better hope that there are plenty of memory expansion slots.

Re:As long as it isn't crippled software wise...

[justforaday]

You want to run FCP and Motion, a suite of programs that runs 1300 bucks, but you won't spend more than 500 for the hardware to run it on?!?

Hell yes they would sell!

[jacobcaz]

I would buy one to put on my desk at work to prove they would interact with our network. Everyone gives me an odd stare when I recommend they pickup a Mac laptop for their personal work.

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).

About friggin time!

[Mean_Nishka]

We all know Apple's been sitting on a gold mine if they could only get the cost of their computers in line with the rest of the 'commodity' PC's out in the market. If this rumor is indeed true, Apple could very well pick up some market share.

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.

Apple needs to rethink specifications

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apple needs to rethink specifications

[atrizzah]

But at a sub-$500 price point, every dollar matters. If these things do sell like hotcakes, Apple needs to squeeze out the biggest margin they possibly can in order to make any money on it. This computer isn't going to be meant for the type of person who reads specs before they buy, it's for the people who just want to try out the new "Internet thingy" they've been hearing about these days. Apple wants people like you to shell out a bit more cash for your computer. I think that in this case, "underspeccing" is the way to go, since they know plenty of people will buy it regardless of specs because they just want to try Apple (if they're high end users) or own any computer at all (if they're low end users).

A great example, have you heard of the low end Palm Zire series? Absurdly underspecced--they even decreased the number of hardware buttons--but they became Palm's best selling unit for over a year. And it's simply because the type of people who bought it weren't power users and didn't demand competitive specs, they just wanted any Palm. For many, it was perfectly adequate, and for others, it whetted their apetite for a more powerful unit (more dollars for Palm)

Re:Apple needs to rethink specifications

[xjerky]

Agreed. Like others have said this is supposed to be a cheap machine so of course it's underspecced, but that doesn't excuse/explain dual G5s selling with only 256MB of RAM. My work machine is a dual 1.8Ghz model, and I could barely run Safari and iTunes at the same time without getting the Spinning Beach Ball of Death. I wasn't going to play Apple's game and pay them 3x the normal price for expansion RAM - I bought it third party. Runs MUCH better now with 1.2GB RAM.

Why sell a machine with so much CPU horsepower then don't expext anyone to run an app that could actually take advantage of it (like Photoshop)?

Here They Come

[Alexander]

"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?"

Re:Here They Come

[byolinux]

You forgot the obligatory comment about one mouse button too ;)

Re:Here They Come

[grunherz]

It's actually more ergonomic to use the command key.

Unfortunately, I switched to a Mac when the two-button with scroll wheel mouse had already been burned into my brain and I work with it.

But, if you ever watch a Mac user, especially a professional, who uses a lot of keyboard shortcuts, that command key is the most used key on the keyboard and the left thumb is always posed above it.

A one-button mouse is not a detriment and is in fact a more efficient way to work if you have learned to work within the ergonomic environment that it was designed in.

Kinda like a Dvorak keyboard.

iPod Dock built in

[mikeloader]

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.

Not for US Market

[Lysander Luddite]

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

Sub-$500 market

[Aggrazel]

The way the world is going, "Sub-$500" is slowly edging its way away from the "economy class" and becoming more of the middle line for PCs. Just look at Dell, they are selling brand new Celeron 2.4ghz machines

• 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.

Re:Interesting...

[CrackedButter]

What other software do you need if it is a secondary machine?
You won't need these for a start when buying a mac:
Mp3 player, dvd player, photo editor, movie editor, music editor, dvd burning software, internet browser, anti-spyware, anti-virus, word processor, email, instant messenger.

Apple's approaching it wrong

[IGnatius T Foobar]

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.

Re:Interesting...

[Nexum]

It's funny, one thing I remember from WWDC this year was one of the sessions that attempted to debunk the myths about Apple Enterprise Computing - one big one was "It'll be too difficult to train out users on different software"

The next slide simply showed a class of 4-to-5 year olds sitting on the floor of a classroom learning how to use some new Macs, they all looked like they were having a great time.

The implication was very clear - either your employees are less capable than the average four-year old, or it's going to be a breeze to train them.

More seriously though, the whole training thing is a bit of a myth in itself - Microsoft has made a habit out of taking something they see on the Apple platform (in terms of GUI innovation) and breaking it just enough to make sure it doesn't look like a complete rip-off of the original. The consequence that I have found in training PC users to use OS X, is that they already understand how a feature is supposed to work except that in OS X, it actually WORKS like they expect it to finally.

Not enough RAM

[Cow007]

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.

Re:Better Prices?

[Nexum]

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.

Innocents Day?

[ticotek]

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.

No.

[Rew190]

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.

BRING IT ON!!!

[amichalo]

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.

Re:possible pandora's box (shameful pun)

[amichalo]

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.

Re:New G4 Mac Ain't Gonna Happen

[dafz1]

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).

Add a Built-in iPod Dock.

[jrifkin]

If they're trying to woo the iPod users, they should provide a built-in iPod dock, and help reduce cable sprawl.

The answer to familial tech support?

[Snorklefish]

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.

Re:reality check

[gobbo]

I regularly have interns with their new XP-laden laptops puffing their lips out in a combination of awe and despair when they realize that the dual-450MHz G4 I have them working on is

• 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.

Re:Apple has never competed in PC market

[olcrazypete]

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

now's their chance?

[utexaspunk]

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.

Mac Crack

[EaterOfDog]

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.

No discussion: Gimme

[Damocles666]

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.

Apple's answer to Media Center?

[Catbeller]

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!

Re:I'll take four

[Hawthorne01]

Okay, a point by point rebuttal:
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 free

You'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.

And they'll call it...

[falcon203e]

... 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.

Re:Seriously, how about a cluster of these?

[vmisev]

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...

OS X clustering info and links:
http://www.apple.com.au/server/clustering_resource s.html

good start point for further research...

Re:How about an $500 iBook ;)

[BlueDjinn]

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).

Target market is windows users -- built-in KVM

[Batlord]

TFA mentions that it will be small--designed to sit under or next to an existing monitor. If the target market is current windows users wanting to smoothly make the "switch", it should do a KVM pass-through, cables included.

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.

Would be great, but...

[mojowantshappy]

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.

Re:Would be great, but...

[ErikZ]

"Would a consumer rather buy a $500 headless Mac and a $100 CRT monitor then a $799 eMac?"

Yes. In fact, if this isn't just a rumor, I'll buy one.

"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?"

500$ + 100$ = 600$
Cheap emac = 800$

Is the savings of two hundred dollars that confusing to you?

It matters.

Accessorize your iPod--with a computer!

[Zhe Mappel]

A certain kind of Mac lover--not the majority, in my view--loves to say gloatingly, on message boards, in a voice that I always imagine sounds like a cross between Alistair Cooke and Leonard Pinth-Garnell:

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!