PDA

View Full Version : 500 Dollar iMac?


flipnap
01-03-2005, 12:34 AM
could be a good move (rare move as well) for apple ..

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/31/technology/apple.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

js33
01-03-2005, 12:43 AM
It might have been cool a year or two ago when cheap PCs were emerging everywhere but I think Apple is too late to the game this time. No one wants a G4 anymore. If anyone is going to buy a Mac they want a G5. Now if they come out with a $500 laptop that might be a different story.

Cheers,
JS

jscott
01-03-2005, 05:29 AM
If true I'd have to disagree js33. The average person doesn't need the processing power of a G5. Most users just want to get on the internet, email, IM, deal with music, etc. All things a 1.25 ghz G4 can do well.

It will be interesting to see if this specuation is true.

-jscott

onlooker
01-03-2005, 08:05 AM
What does this have to do with CG? How many CG computers are in the $500 category anyway? Most DCC workstation video cards are worth more than that. I don't think this supposed iMac going to be much of a CG machine if it's even going to happen.

I think this belongs in general discussion - not - CG news. :eek:

Para
01-03-2005, 08:49 AM
If true I'd have to disagree js33. The average person doesn't need the processing power of a G5. Most users just want to get on the internet, email, IM, deal with music, etc. All things a 1.25 ghz G4 can do well.

With 500 dollars you can get a bit faster PC to do the same job though.

I have to agree with js33, Apple is late.

maxx10
01-03-2005, 09:21 AM
With 500 dollars you can get a bit faster PC to do the same job though.

I have to agree with js33, Apple is late.

but it doesn't match perfectly with the 2.5 millions of iPods sold... don't judge this machine from a pro user perspective...

Zarf
01-03-2005, 01:48 PM
With 500 dollars you can get a bit faster PC to do the same job though.

I have to agree with js33, Apple is late.

Raw speed isn't the only consideration when buying a computer for some people.
I havn't turned my athlon on ever since I got my 1.5ghz powerbook :love:

Cheers,
Zarf

Para
01-03-2005, 01:53 PM
Raw speed isn't the only consideration when buying a computer for some people.
I havn't turned my athlon on ever since I got my 1.5ghz powerbook :love:

Granted, I'd rather use a console system of some sort to do 3D than any computer :)

crazy3dman
01-03-2005, 02:58 PM
It might have been cool a year or two ago when cheap PCs were emerging everywhere but I think Apple is too late to the game this time. No one wants a G4 anymore. If anyone is going to buy a Mac they want a G5. Now if they come out with a $500 laptop that might be a different story.

Cheers,
JS

The new iMac has a G5 processor in it.

And as for onlooker's comment " I don't think this supposed iMac going to be much of a CG machine". While it may not be ideal for 3D work, the iMac is more than powerful enough for someone doing 2D work in Painter and Photoshop.

slaughters
01-03-2005, 11:11 PM
...How many CG computers are in the $500 category anyway?... :eek:Just bought my son a 2.6 GigHz machine (DVD Burner, 60 Gig HD, 512MB mem, GeForce 4) for only $450 this holiday season from Best Buy.

While not "cream of the crop" high tech it's certainly faster than the machine *I* use to render on.

Even though the price of the monitor was not included (I already had a spare) this shows the competition the iMac will face in the sub $500 price range.

dmeyer
01-03-2005, 11:58 PM
Just bought my son a 2.6 GigHz machine (DVD Burner, 60 Gig HD, 512MB mem, GeForce 4) for only $450 this holiday season from Best Buy.

While not "cream of the crop" high tech it's certainly faster than the machine *I* use to render on.

Even though the price of the monitor was not included (I already had a spare) this shows the competition the iMac will face in the sub $500 price range.

People shopping for a < $500 web surfing box don't care about speed.

jscott
01-04-2005, 12:10 AM
Yeah really! Have you seen how fast an Windows box is after it's all eat up with Spyware and crap. Man it's like a 486 or it just locks up.

I don't want to turn this into a pointless platform war. If this speculation is true. Let's give Apple a chance and see what they offer and at what price.

-jscott

js33
01-04-2005, 12:23 AM
The new iMac has a G5 processor in it.


Yes it does and they are not $500 machines either. :)

Cheers,
JS

SOPLAND
01-04-2005, 12:44 AM
Just bought my son a 2.6 GigHz machine (DVD Burner, 60 Gig HD, 512MB mem, GeForce 4) for only $450 this holiday season from Best Buy.

While not "cream of the crop" high tech it's certainly faster than the machine *I* use to render on.

Even though the price of the monitor was not included (I already had a spare) this shows the competition the iMac will face in the sub $500 price range.
Well, I think this machine is probably going to do very well for Apple. I may even buy one myself depending on what the final specs are. You could get a faster PC for sure for the same price, but that PC won't have the same appeal as this iMac. It's going to be tiny and pleasing to the eye. From the description, it's going to be smaller than a 12 inch iBook with the same design aesthetic as the iPod or iMac. It's going to be attractive and you'lll be able to slip it nicely into your entertainment center to use as a media server.

The other thing many fail to consider is the software that Apple packs into their machines. People buy PCs and wipe them clean right away. With the Mac you get software that's actually useful and usable. Windows is a pretty far cry from Mac OSX, and you'd pay hundreds to get the same functional software package that ships with the Mac. The iLife suite is pretty much everything the average user wants. The rumor is that these machines are going to ship with a new iWork suite as well, which suppovely includes a 2D program Apple is hoping to build into a Photoshop killer. If you're a programmer, all Macs also ship with XCode. An environment like XCode would easily cosy you a few hundred dollars on a Windows PC.

Anyhow, until this Christmas I hadn't touched a Mac in about 6 years. My mother-in-law got an iMac and I played with it non-stop over the break since I had no PC available. It ran wings, Silo demo, and Maya PLE just fine and it has a crappy Radeon 9200 in it. You aren't going to set any high bar marks for rendering speed on these machines, or make a feature, but if they have a GeForce 5200 in them, they'll be more than adequite for moderate 3D work.

crazy3dman
01-04-2005, 02:47 AM
Yes it does and they are not $500 machines either. :)

Cheers,
JS

Right, but this thread started with a link to an article that was speculating on the possibility that Apple might release a $500 version. And even if it were a G4 processor, still plenty of power for digital painting. :)

SUB7NYC
01-04-2005, 06:06 AM
As a graphic desinger i used to work only on macs. After my first pc i'll never look back

Scott Harris
01-04-2005, 07:18 PM
if you look at this from the average home point of view...

this is going to work for apple because people are just sick of viruses... PCs render themselves usless after just a few months for the average home internet surfer.

I think apples intention is not to sell this think to CG users and graphic designers,,, its to sell them to internet surfers and people who hate viruses and spy ware.

agreenster
01-04-2005, 08:04 PM
I've used both for years. PC's are faster, but even XP can be stupid, buggy, and too complicated sometimes. Macs are slower in many respects, though my dual G5 is definitely fast enough for me to do CG. The nice thing about Macs is definitely the stability of everything, no viruses, and the ease of use. (even for power users, command-line/unix shell rendering in OSX is beautiful) Can't hardly beat iLife.

I say, get both.

harlan_hill
01-04-2005, 08:19 PM
As a graphic desinger i used to work only on macs. After my first pc i'll never look back

I had the same experience; only the exact opposite. Used to work on PC's exclusively, picked up a G4 PowerMac when they first came out. I then sold or gave away all of my PC's and switched entirely to the Mac platform, and I'll never look back. :)

Personally, I don't adhere to the whole platform wars nonsense. I believe that people should use whatever tools available that allow them to accomplish what they need - for me, that is the Mac platform. It iritates me however to see people bash one product or the other just because it didn't work for them (oh, I'm not insinuating that your bashing, I'm referring to the general bashing by both teams in the platform wars).

Any performance lost by using Mac hardware (which is minimal, if at all) I make up for in terms of workflow. I'm just able to accomplish more on the Mac than I was on the PC - and I know that works both ways for some others as well.

In regards to the $500 Mac. I think it's a great idea, but I need to reserve final judgment until we have some hard facts about it. Obviously I don't think any serious artists will be looking at it as a worksation, but from the standpoint of allowing someone interested in using Mac the opportunity to get onboard for $500 is fantastic. Is it going to cause the demise of the Microsoft empire? No, of course not, and people shouldn't even look at it that way. There's too much of a focus on wanting one platform to defeat the other. I say F'ck all that; use what you like and don't hate because others use something different.

I prefer Brunette women and quite frankly don't see the fascination with Blondes. I wouldn't chastise someone because they prefer Blondes, nor would I hope that only Brunettes be manufactured from here on out (as I've certainly seen some attractive blondes and wouldn't want to rob the world from that option).

Weeeeeee...

NanoGator
01-04-2005, 08:28 PM
What does this have to do with CG? How many CG computers are in the $500 category anyway? Most DCC workstation video cards are worth more than that. I don't think this supposed iMac going to be much of a CG machine if it's even going to happen.

I think this belongs in general discussion - not - CG news. :eek:

It's CG news to me. I'm writing a plugin and I need a Mac to compile on.

EvilE
01-04-2005, 09:05 PM
If this really happens i will buy one just out of interest because i never used a mac before and 500 are not a big investment .
Sven

gabe28
01-05-2005, 02:56 AM
People who can't figure out how to control viruses and spyware (how hard is it to download ad aware and Zone Alarm? they're free after all) should probably buy a Mac. But I've found that with very minimal effort I've been able to keep my Win2000 box sqeaky clean from pests.

As far as a cheap iMac goes.... I don't know. I could care less if it comes out but I'm not sure how it'll do. Seems to me the whole Mac line is floundering now. I thought the G5 was supposed to put them back in the game but that's fizzled out. Seemss the iPod is the only Apple product getting people excited anymore.

DevilHacker
01-05-2005, 03:04 AM
If this happens, I would buy it, but only because apple computer cases are very nice... I would probably end up tarring out and replacing half the hardware inside and installing Linux on it.

That being said; I drought that this would happen, because apple is always known for there overpriced products. It would be a 180 degree turn in there ever increasing trend of putting midrange hardware and charging thousands of dollars for it.

Beamtracer
01-05-2005, 03:56 AM
With 500 dollars you can get a bit faster PC to do the same job though. Really? A cheaper Windows PC could do the same job? What job are you talking about?

If the task at hand is to simply switch on and boot up, then maybe a generic Windows box is cheaper. But if you look at the tasks that can be accomplished with the software that comes with the iMac, then the Mac is much cheaper.

This new $500 "headless" Mac will probably come bundled with the iLife suite that includes video editing software, music sequencing software, dvd menu creating software among other things. And for $299 extra you get Motion with compositing, special fx and particle simulations. As an entry level computer it's a bargain.

policarpo
01-05-2005, 08:13 AM
Really? A cheaper Windows PC could do the same job? What job are you talking about?

If the task at hand is to simply switch on and boot up, then maybe a generic Windows box is cheaper. But if you look at the tasks that can be accomplished with the software that comes with the iMac, then the Mac is much cheaper.

This new $500 "headless" Mac will probably come bundled with the iLife suite that includes video editing software, music sequencing software, dvd menu creating software among other things. And for $299 extra you get Motion with compositing, special fx and particle simulations. As an entry level computer it's a bargain.I highly doubt that you will be able to run Motion on the $500 iMac, and as far as iDVD and iMovie, while they are great introductory apps, they require a fast G4 Processor as well as a lot of RAM.

As far as Garage Band, it's a beast and requires again a fast processor and a lot of Ram. If we are looking @ 1.5ghz and above speeds on these G4 $500 machines, then perhaps they will be a good investment (provided you can stick more that 512mb of RAM in them). Otherwise they become a good machine to surf, check email and listen to iTunes on.

I hope they do good...cause I'd like to see Macs become more popular with the general consumer.

But we'll see. Apple usually does good on surprising people. :)

Para
01-05-2005, 09:13 AM
Really? A cheaper Windows PC could do the same job? What job are you talking about?

If the task at hand is to simply switch on and boot up, then maybe a generic Windows box is cheaper. But if you look at the tasks that can be accomplished with the software that comes with the iMac, then the Mac is much cheaper.

This new $500 "headless" Mac will probably come bundled with the iLife suite that includes video editing software, music sequencing software, dvd menu creating software among other things. And for $299 extra you get Motion with compositing, special fx and particle simulations. As an entry level computer it's a bargain.

Since you asked I decided to build a computer based on the $500 budget (which is "only" ~380 euros) and I actually got interested what do I get with 500 dollars. Here's what I managed to get with that money, notice that the price doesn't include a monitor since if I understood correctly, neither does that cheap Mac.

AMD Sempron 2300+ boxed processor Š 57.90 Ä
ASUS A7V880 motherboard Š 64.90 Ä (has integrated 6.1 soundcard and network adapter)
Kingston 512MB DDR 333MHz 74.90 Ä
Samsung SpinPoint P80 80GB HDD Š Š 59.90 Ä
Asus V9520-X/TD GeForce FX5200 128MB Š 56.90Ä
Logitech MX510 Optical Mouse Š 44.90 Ä
Keytronic KT-1000 keyboard Š 16.50 Ä

Totals in 375.90 euros or 496.19 dollars.

That's the kind of PC money-wise the new Mac will be fighting against at least here in Finland.

Quick edit: Oh yeah, it doesn't include an OS license. Those things vary a lot, at the moment WinXP Home OEM license costs 83.90 Ä in here. That'd fit in easily if I would've collected that package with the price range of 500 euros instead of 500 dollars.

ThomasMahler
01-05-2005, 09:29 AM
Guys, don't you think that we'll also see Viruses for MacOS if it get's more widely distributed?

SOPLAND
01-05-2005, 10:33 AM
Since you asked I decided to build a computer based on the $500 budget (which is "only" ~380 euros) and I actually got interested what do I get with 500 dollars. Here's what I managed to get with that money, notice that the price doesn't include a monitor since if I understood correctly, neither does that cheap Mac.

AMD Sempron 2300+ boxed processor Š 57.90 Ä
ASUS A7V880 motherboard Š 64.90 Ä (has integrated 6.1 soundcard and network adapter)
Kingston 512MB DDR 333MHz 74.90 Ä
Samsung SpinPoint P80 80GB HDD Š Š 59.90 Ä
Asus V9520-X/TD GeForce FX5200 128MB Š 56.90Ä
Logitech MX510 Optical Mouse Š 44.90 Ä
Keytronic KT-1000 keyboard Š 16.50 Ä

Totals in 375.90 euros or 496.19 dollars.

That's the kind of PC money-wise the new Mac will be fighting against at least here in Finland.

Quick edit: Oh yeah, it doesn't include an OS license. Those things vary a lot, at the moment WinXP Home OEM license costs 83.90 Ä in here. That'd fit in easily if I would've collected that package with the price range of 500 euros instead of 500 dollars.
You also forgot to get a case and a power supply and a combo CDRW/DVD drive...

parallax
01-05-2005, 10:39 AM
2 words: FCP & Cheap.

iC4
01-05-2005, 01:25 PM
I don't like macs at all, but this sounds not bad.

If it is small enough it may be a good media center pc. Just put linux on it and use it as a media center pc. The question is if there are free slots...

Zarf
01-05-2005, 01:47 PM
People who can't figure out how to control viruses and spyware (how hard is it to download ad aware and Zone Alarm? they're free after all) should probably buy a Mac. But I've found that with very minimal effort I've been able to keep my Win2000 box sqeaky clean from pests.

I think the point is that you shouldn't have too. Some people just don't want to bother with that sort of thing.


<editorial>
I know many many people who would *love* to purchase a 500 dollar mac simply because they want to get actual *work* done instead of staying abreast of all the flaws and defecincies in their OS. It is not only "normal" people who feel this way, there are many highly knowledgable and technically oriented users (such as programmers) that feel the same.

Up until now Microsoft products have given the general public the mistaken impression that computers are these peculiar machines that almost seem to have a life of their own, behaving in an arbitrary and almost non-deterministic fashion. However it's finally gotten SO bad that even the US government has stepped in and urged people to *not* use one of microsofts flagship products (Internet Explorer). People are beginning to wake up and Linux/BSD are not really 'desktop ready' so there is definitly an oppurtunity here for Apple and Macintosh based commidity hardware.

For my part I couldn't be bothered with having to download 200+ meg service packs for win2kpro (on a dialup!) just in order to install the patch for something like the msBlaster worm, so I pulled the modem cord out of the phone jack and stayed offline until I got a Powerbook and DSL. I was pretty much fed up, and being a programmer I know very well that Windows does not have to be the way it is, it just violates *many* good software engineering principles and common sense (there are many many well documented examples... many of which are not exactly new).
</editorial>

Regarding what someone said about virii for OSX: It's not nearly as likely and even the ones that might appear would be limited in the damage that they could do unless your logged in as root (which OSX disables by default). Additionally the proliferation of linux and cousins has caused very few new virii to show up for those platforms and OSX is built upon a BSD system sitting on top of a Mach microkernel so it has all the sweet security one has come to expect from UNIX (serving geeks everywhere for over 20 years
:applause: )

Heres to having a choice in personal computing :thumbsup:

Cheers,
Zarf

Keith Osborn
01-05-2005, 02:39 PM
I don't like macs at all, but this sounds not bad.

If it is small enough it may be a good media center pc. Just put linux on it and use it as a media center pc. The question is if there are free slots...
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Why hasn't Apple jumped feet first into media center pc's? It seems they're the next big thing in consumer electronics. Given Apple's bent for great design and interfaces, I imagine they could come up with something really spiffy.

Anyhow, I used to be huge into tinkering with PC's - and they're great for that. You can open the hood and have at it. Lately however, as my spare time ebbs away, I'm becoming more concerned with my computer behaving and me being more productive. I just built a new pc and love it but I have had to maintain it more than I'd like and I wouldn't mind making the switch to the Mac if the price/performance was right.

BigJay
01-05-2005, 03:27 PM
there is a chance that this could me a media pc. they they are talking about something stereo component in size with no monitor then there is the chance it could be a media server that hooks into the home network or has a wireless card in it so that you can program it and upload music to it. Adding a tv out for basic web surfing and word processing could be a possiblity.

At $500 even a machine that uses an external monitor would be a good way for apple to get into the homes of pc users. At that price and with the software it comes with you couold hook up an old monitor to it or trade out your virus/adware stalled pc for one.

I help alot of friends clean off spyware and there is alot of people pcs crippled by the stuff. Most people don't go to online forums so never hear of spybot, adware or firewalls until service pack 2 kills their machine. If apple played their cards right they could sweap in and with the right advertising steal alot of users, especially at $500. After a co-worker went and payed $150 to clean adware of his machine only to get it filled up again by his kazaa using son that price may be a good entry point for apple.


Well that's my prediction. Be interesting to see what it turns out to be.

Para
01-05-2005, 05:32 PM
You also forgot to get a case and a power supply and a combo CDRW/DVD drive...

Negotiable. I even know a guy who has his computer in a cardboard box ("Why should it have a case?", he says :rolleyes:). Power supply is of course important, but the package I collected was done in a hurry and there's actually several parts one could shave prices even lower, for example the mouse. And CDRW/DVD drive is only like 10 euros when bought used so... :) I admit it that there's some obvious things missing from that packet. I'll try again a bit later when I'm sober'n'such :)

harlan_hill
01-05-2005, 06:14 PM
I don't like macs at all, but this sounds not bad.

If it is small enough it may be a good media center pc. Just put linux on it and use it as a media center pc. The question is if there are free slots...


Why would you put linux on it? Mac OSX is rated time and time again by practically all the Unix magazines as being the best Unix based OS. It has the capabilities of doing everything Linux can, but in a much more user friendly interface. X11 built in, and you also have access to all of Apple's great tools (iMovie, FCP, iDVD, Garageband, etc...) which don't have any comparable equivalents in Linux. On top of all that, the Linux you install would have to be a PPC based derivative meaning that your apps would need to have PPC calls as well.

Just curious.

js33
01-05-2005, 06:54 PM
A $500 iMac would probably be nothing more than a media center machine. Basically it would be an iPod server. A place where you could run iTunes and download music for your iPod. It will probably only have enough ram (128 or maybe 256mb) to run the OS and maybe one of the iLife programs at a time. Also it will probably not be upgradeable at all. So what you get is all you will ever have with it except for maybe being able to use an external Firewire drive.

Of course maybe Apple will find a way to let you surf the iTunes music store and download directly to the iPod and not even need a Mac anymore. :shrug:

It seems Apples focus these days is how to expand the iPod marketshare which is not a bad thing but their high end users would probably like some more love these days.

Oh yeah, they're still not at 3Ghz yet but maybe that will come soon?

Or maybe we will see a dual dual-core 3Ghz machine soon...or maybe not?

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
01-06-2005, 01:32 AM
Why hasn't Apple jumped feet first into media center pc's? It seems they're the next big thing in consumer electronics. I wouldn't bet that a "media PC" will be the next big thing. I have my doubts. Maybe it will be something other than a "PC" that will be the center of home media.

Look what Apple's doing. Their lossless audio codec streaming hifi over wifi to home audio components using Airport Express. Also, I think there are a lot more home stereos with an iPod at the centre than a Windows PC sitting at the center.

I don't think this rumored "headless iMac" is intended to sit at the center of your hifi, or even be a media center. I think it should be viewed as an entry level machine that Apple is hoping will attract people at the lower end of the market... those who can't afford a G5.

Regarding megahertz... I think all the processor manufacturers have taken their eyes off the megahertz game, and are instead rushing to build dual-core processors. I think that's why Intel abandoned work on a higher-megahertz Pentium, instead directing all resources to building a dual-core processor.

js33
01-06-2005, 02:02 AM
Regarding megahertz... I think all the processor manufacturers have taken their eyes off the megahertz game, and are instead rushing to build dual-core processors. I think that's why Intel abandoned work on a higher-megahertz Pentium, instead directing all resources to building a dual-core processor. Yes I'm surprised they didn't do this a few years ago instead of trying to make one processor reach 10 Ghz. At the time they all assumed they could just keep pushing the speed up forever but the physics of heat and energy consumption got in the way. Now we hope software will be able to take advantage of these new dual or more core processors or their seeming advantage will be useless at first. Perhaps the OS will take care of most of the dirty work of using the multicores efficiently.

Cheers,
JS

gabe28
01-06-2005, 02:02 AM
Also, I think there are a lot more home stereos with an iPod at the centre than a Windows PC sitting at the center. You've got to be kidding me?! iPods are cool stuff, but they are owned by a small minority of computer owners.... and just about EVERYONE who has a computer listens to music on their computer.


Regarding megahertz... I think all the processor manufacturers have taken their eyes off the megahertz game, and are instead rushing to build dual-core processors. I think that's why Intel abandoned work on a higher-megahertz Pentium, instead directing all resources to building a dual-core processor. Yes, but this is only because heat issues are forcing them to considers other options. If Intel and AMD had their way they'd keep cranking up the Megahurtz as long as they could. Personally, I think it's too bad they can't. I don't think dual headed chips are going to give us the regular performance increases we've all been used to getting with processor upgrades. But I guess it couldn't go on forever.

stupidkiwi
01-06-2005, 03:05 AM
I am going to refrain from pointing out any persons post because I believe that many users need to calm down on the format war.

My first point is that in my experience and with the official surveys only 95% of all Windows users have never tried using a Mac. I suggest this is smaller when it comes to Windows users trying out a recent Mac. Mac users have, as a whole, used Windows machines with some regularity. Many Mac users are a little over defensive of their platform of choice, but it can be hard to sit and take comments about your favourite platform that are far from the truth. It makes it harder still when many of the people making these comments have never used a Mac.

My second point is that speed no longer counts. Garage band plays well on my G4 1.33 Ghz. I have yet to have any speed problems at all. Think back to where we have come from. Many of the younger CG people will not recall from their own experiences, but we older hands had to make due. Back in the days that I had to work on a 33 Mhz (66 Mhz by Intels Mhz standards) 68030 with 3 Meg of Unified Ram on an Amiga with a 120 meg SCSI HDD. On that machine, I could animate full screen, full resolution PAL TV graphics for up to two minutes. I animated in 2D using a mouse or 3D using far more primitive tools than we have now. On a 1.33 Ghz G4 I can touch the sky! Having the biggest numbers on your machine does not make you the best artist, modeller or animator. Rendering still counts, but make yourself a render farm out of cheap machines running Linux.

allseeingi
01-06-2005, 02:51 PM
As far as I can see this machine would be ALL about the iPod. As reported in Macworld (Jan 2005) a leading Wallstreet analyst predicts that iPod sales to Windows users will have reached 100m by 2008 and 158m by 2010 (As a proportion of 500m portable media devices sold altogether). And that doesn't count potential sales of the iPod flash soon to be released which will make Ipod's even more affordable. So take that for what you will but it seems an obvious move that Apple would release a cheap Mac to try and swing some of the Windows marketshare towards themselves, capitalizing on the first time interest in Apple products from most people buying an iPod.

For these people a Mac with a 1.25 G4 does everything they want: internet, e-mail, office files, digital pictures, maybe a bit of video editing, and I'm sure thats fast enough to record television into MPEG2 using something like EyeTV. And of course they can sync their iPod with it. I'm sure what a lot of people want is a smart looking computer that just works, I can't help but think that's exactly what they would get.

I think its a smart and logical move if true and another sign that Apple has got it's good business sense hat on. To the people that say Apple are neglecting the high-end users, I just want to say I can understand your frustration but people keep forgetting that Apple is a business. iPod has pretty much doubled the value of the company so it's obvious they are going to put a lot of effort into that and the associated products. As such I believe that high-end users have and will continue to feel the benefit of this. In recent years things have only been getting better for the high-end users, particularly since the release of OS X and I can only see them getting better. And regarding the problems with G5 processors (short supply, lack of 3Ghz as yet etc) it's been well documented that IBM as well as every other processor manufacturer have had problems with the new fabrication technology so this is hardly their fault. Everyone is trying new things now so I can only see that this hurdle will be crossed very soon.

As someone who has had to support over 400 computers (80% PC, 20% Mac) over the last four years all I can say is I know which machines I found easier to use and fix. Which is a large part of the reason I recently bought a Powerbook to use on the Graphic Design degree I've just started. So far I have had no reason to switch on my Athlon XP 2400 since I've had it but then to have the two seems to me the best of all worlds. I also sincerely hope Apple never gets more than 5-10% of the hardware market if it means they are as innovative and free of problems as they are right now.

- allseeingi

Saurus
01-06-2005, 09:48 PM
Trying to use Ipod to sell machine is nothing new to Apple. They tried this with their releasing Ipod to Apple user exclusively first and having Window user waitÖhoping not having access to Ipod is a good enough reason to switch. Now they are trying to do it by releasing a cheaper Mac by linking it to an Ipod.

Will this machine sell new people to Apple? This machine will sell to some new people who are happy with their Ipod or frustrated with Windowís security, but I donít think itís going to be anything big. In order to run an Ipod, you have to have a machine in your desktop already. From what I have been hearing this 500 dollar Mac is nothing more than Internet surfing, word-processing, and Ipod up loader machine; which Iím sure their current machine can already do and do it for a long time. By the time Ipod users are ready for a new machine the market will probably look different. The best hope for Apple is to have the Window security issue stay in the news for a long time. And according to Bill, this is going to be Windowís number one (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/91fc374a-6023-11d9-bd2f-00000e2511c8.html) priority. The mass consumers donít care about Windows weak core as long as it can run their favorite programs. If the security issue can be resolved or reduced by Microsoft, itís bad news for Apple. Consumers are media driven. They will follow what they hear is hot and avoid what they hear is not. Apple has been very strong in marketing the Ipod and they have to keep the marketing machine going and going for a long time to keep Ipod phenomena going, and even a harder task in converting Ipod users into Apple users.

This 500 dollar machine can also hurt Apple. Apple users who are ready to move to a newer machine and donít need the power, will probably by-pass the pricier Apple and buy this cheaper machine. That means losing potential revenue.

Apples strength is also their Achilles heel. Having a tighter controlled software/hardware gives Apple the security and stability products, but they can only rely on themselves to do all the marketing. Widows, having open ended hardware, doesnít have the control that Apple has and have a greater task in writing codes that will work for the thousand of hardware configuration thatís out there. Yet, these same companies give Microsoft millions of dollars of free marketing. Itís a double edge sword.

Itís going to be hard for Apple because there are so many factors why Window base machine has gotten this big and I donít think Ipod is a big enough reason to switch the majority of the base user.

onlooker
01-06-2005, 10:08 PM
If this really happens i will buy one just out of interest because i never used a mac before and 500 are not a big investment .
Sven

Not a bad reason at all. I also liked the fact that someone mentioned using it to compile an application, or a plugin for for OS X. X-Code is free, and in the windows world such an application would cost you $200.00 (or more) easily. This is a cheap solution for developers to use for porting applications. There is also mention of bundled applications as I have heard. So the bottom line is - this isn't supposed to be a big bad CG machine, but it's can definitely solve problems for those in need of an inexpensive Mac. This $500 investment can get you a lot of really great stuff if you ask me. :)

dmeyer
01-06-2005, 10:12 PM
Not a bad reason at all. I also liked the fact that someone mentioned using it to compile an application, or a plugin for for OS X. X-Code is free, and in the windows world such an application would cost you $200.00 (or more) easily. This is a cheap solution for developers to use for porting applications. There is also mention of bundled applications as I have heard. So the bottom line is - this isn't supposed to be a big bad CG machine, but it's can definitely solve problems for those in need of an inexpensive Mac. This $500 investment can get you a lot of really great stuff if you ask me. :)
for $500 I'd get one to tuck in the closet and use as a backup server and/or iTunes sharing box.

allseeingi
01-06-2005, 10:28 PM
Itís going to be hard for Apple because there are so many factors why Window base machine has gotten this big and I donít think Ipod is a big enough reason to switch the majority of the base user.

I think you're absolutely right, it's not a big enough reason to switch for the majority. But out of those 100m Windows users with an iPod, if they could persuade as little as 5% of them to buy a cheap mac instead then of course that represents sales of 5m more macs. No it's not going to set the world on fire but then it's nothing to bawlk at for Apple either. And then if they play their cards right they may get those convertees into a cycle of buying macs when they come to upgrade.

Although the Windows security issue can do nothing but help Apple at the moment, I agree that I'm sure things will be much better by the time Longhorn comes out. But I don't think this is truly driving force for people too switch to mac and I don't think Apple will suffer too much if and when MS get their act together. I don't know what it's like where you are but in the national press here in the UK you get a report only about once a month on the latest mega-virus or some credit-card scam. I don't think the majority of people have the first clue about how this nasty software is affecting them, lurking quietly on their PC, waiting for them to type in their credit card numbers so it can send them back to hacker HQ, or they would be doing something about it. So if they don't give a stuff now I don't think they will in a couple of years time.

But you are right, Apple are niche market, they always will be and I think they prefer it that way.

- allseeingi

stupidkiwi
01-08-2005, 12:25 AM
To the doom and gloomers. I honestly believe you will be proved wrong with this machine.

I once predicted that the release and success of the original iMac would kill the Mac line. I was wrong. I was basing my theory on the Amiga example. There were 10 Amiga models, from the first 32 bit console to high end graphics machines. But the success of the A500 on the early days meant that 99% of the public who had heard of Amigas thought they were only games machines. The A500 was upgradeable, add newer CPUs, more ram, a HDD, etc. This made it possible to make graphics machines and midi based sequencers etc. Now on to the Mac that was unexpandable other than the HDD that sold in its millions like the A500 did. It had to make a lasting impression in the publics collective mind that the Mac was a 233Mhz machine with a 10 gig drive and 128 meg of ram. But it did not happen. Apple management are far brighter than that. They avoided the iMac pidgeon-hole through marketing and design.

Again it seems Apple may be in a tight spot. I don't think they are. They have picked the right time to announce a PC killer machine. Aimed at the average Joe. My mother, your mother. They bought into their PCs during the big PC uptake boom in 98, 99, 2000. These machines are now massively outdated (this pisses off average joe who is used to the VHS deck running for more than a decade), they are bogging down with excessive background applications their owners never asked to be installed, they have not bought software for four or five years so either way they need to spend on new software, they have recently been hit by a virus they had to pay $100 to have removed in a repair shop, they have recently purchaced an iPod, and they have heard that the coolest machine is called a "Macinsplosh" or "Mactintop" or something.

Now offer them a $500 solution telling them they will not get virii, they will not need to upgrade for seven years, it comes with a full set of free software, it is the choice of teachers worldwide so it has to be good for educational programs for the grandkids, it ties in perfectly with their new iPod (if they ever get to figure what it does), and this machine is the coolest thing since Elvis.

They will also go chat with their friends about their new "cooler than Elvis" machine over a nice cup of tea.

Apoclypse
01-08-2005, 12:51 AM
Before MacOs X came along I loathed macs. However now I'm enraptured with them. I want one so bad and was thinking of buying a powerbook or something when the funds permit, just to use MacOs X ( i can play with he interface all day it so beautiful). However I do recognize the speed issues. Once you actually open an application all is well, however applications seem to take forever to open. The system itself is just to slow sometimes when it starts up and stuff, but again once its started the speed isn't bad at all. Coming from the (ugh) windows and :love: linux world I'm more used to opening an app instantly. But for osx I'll wait an hour for it to load its so beautiful. A $500 imac would be great and I would buy it in an instant ( can you imagine what apple can do with a media center version of OSX :buttrock:

And knowing apple it will be a well designed simple little machine.

stupidkiwi
01-08-2005, 01:13 AM
Hehe Coming originally from the Amiga I was used to application loading that was finished by the time you took your finger off the button on the second click. Windows felt slow as a dog, it still does. Apple have a small problem with the loading speeds. It used to be worse. I remember a Mac classic we had load off its HDD in a whole half hour.

All is not lost though. The first thing I did to my Powerbook when I got it 5 months ago was to open it up and pry a new toshiba 7200 rpm drive in. It made things a LOT better. I still have the occasional wait while loading, but they occur for me once a week.

I know I am not the usual Apple fanatic. I actually put off buying a Mac because of the fanatics. I did not like the way they try to conceal flaws. yes the Mac as a platform has flaws, but it has fewer flaws than comparible systems, and we need to be open about the flaws so Steve Jobs stops believing he is the second coming. "On the first day Steve said 'Let there be Apple I', and there was Apple I, and Steve said it was good."

Beamtracer
01-08-2005, 02:23 AM
I have a Mac G5. It's expandable to 8 gigs of RAM. I have Apple's $299 compositing application, Motion. I set up a scene with particles, and attach over 1000 images (one to each particle), then set the blend mode to "add" and hit the play button. It plays in real time. It's amazing!

Now, first, try to find something similar in the same price bracket on Windows. I can't think of anything like that for $299.

Next, think of something that can render this in real time on the Windows platform. Maybe there's something, but I haven't seen it.

My point is that people have been arguing about price and performance. When you look at price, look at the whole system + software, not just the price of the box.

On performance, the speed of Motion shows that when software is optimized for OS X it can match or beat anything else out there, regardless of megahertz.

Now Apple's new $500 box is not a G5. Most people don't need 8 gigs of RAM. In fact most people never upgrade their RAM at all (the readers of CGTalk are not "most people"). For the low-cost market, this new Mac will be a bargain, and will be fast enough to run the bundled iLife suite of applications that include music sequencers and other cool stuff.

Roach
01-08-2005, 09:06 AM
Now, first, try to find something similar in the same price bracket on Windows. I can't think of anything like that for $299.

But does your Mac play HL2...today, and not one year from now?

I probably get bored of owning an Apple.

I work and play on my PC machine. Oh by the way consoles aren't considered part of an Apple package.

ThomasMahler
01-08-2005, 10:38 AM
Don't know if it's been posted yet, but for 500USD, I'd buy such a machine:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/01/20050107171530.shtml

Looks like fake, though...

allseeingi
01-08-2005, 11:19 AM
But does your Mac play HL2...today, and not one year from now?

An unfortunate part of having such a small share of the home computer market is that they're going to be fairly far down the list of priorities for games companies porting software. But the situation isn't as bad as is made out. I love playing Halo and Unreal Tournament 2004 and they both run pretty nice on my Powerbook. I can't imagine how well they'd run on a G5 with a Geforce FX 6800. Which is the other point; it's a shame games aren't ported over more quickly now that the top of the line graphics cards are available. But I suppose you can't have it all ways. Unless you also have a PC desktop like me :D

- allseeingi

dimension10
01-08-2005, 09:43 PM
ooops already posted

Nimmi
01-12-2005, 11:14 AM
I`d like to switch to Mac, but is a Mini Mac G4 1.43 Ghz with 1GB enough for Zbrush 2 ?

tia,

Nimmi

harlan_hill
01-14-2005, 08:27 PM
I`d like to switch to Mac, but is a Mini Mac G4 1.43 Ghz with 1GB enough for Zbrush 2 ?

tia,

Nimmi


You betcha!!

CGTalk Moderation
01-20-2006, 08:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.