Comments about:

Apple introduces 20-inch iMac

I ask you this:
who is this machine for? The executive who doesn't do much work is all I can think of.

how many mac ppl who need/want a 20" 1680x1050 display are going to be shopping for a 1.25ghz G4 with only two rams slots? especially in light of the dual 1.8ghz G5 release and the $2200 pricetag on the iMac I think this is one heck of a rich idiot email checker machine.

at $1999 or less i think the iMac 20" will be a value because 20" screens of this quality alone are worth $1000, but right now i don't see it as being a sweet spot for shopping at the apple store.

bring on the G5 iMacs if you're going to trick them out with big displays and even bigger price tags- that's what i say!

I think there's a significant consumer market for people who want large screens but don't need to use high-end pro apps. Someone who wants to surf the web, play an occasional game, edit their photo library, listen to iTunes, all on a big screen, but wants the all-in-one design for their home. Those folks don't need a dual-G5 (well, YET, anyway).

There are a lot of people happy with their G3 iMacs, too, of course, but some are bound to like the aesthetics of this all-in-one form factor plus the huge screen but don't care about processor speed.

hi peter-
while all the things you say are true, really my whole point is sort of missing you. i'm not saying nobody will appreciate the package, i'm just saying it's lame in principle to have a $2200 web surfing desktop system. it's the pricepoint for that feature set that i'm calling into question as well as the spirit of putting something like this together.

the analogy i'd make would be to the two wheel drive SUVs. you get your big-ass tough-looking gas-tax-loophole idiotmobile but you couldn't actually go offroad on it or tow anything or even drive in the snow. soooo what makes it different than a staionwagon again? oh right... _status!

i'd hate to even get into a discussion of what kinds of other computers you can get for $2200. your last sentence about how folks will appreciate the design despite the performance shortcomings exactly hits on the head my whole problem with apple that this 20" iMac typifies: it's a boobjob of a computer. like a tv commercial or a sitcom, the idea is the same "it won't matter that it's dippy and pointless if we can score enough clevage points".

it's hw releases like this that make me embarrassed to be a mac person. have you seen the porche commercial where the uppermiddle class guy is just gunning his cayenne in the driveway so his friend can hear how cool it sounds over the phone? that's apple all the way. consumer market, sure- but markets can be pretty gross sometimes. like walking past a bang&olufson store in the mall.

Jeez, boze, I understand the desire for a faster processor in these iMacs, but boobjob? Give me a break. I'm running a 1GHz G4 in my PowerBook. They're energy-efficient processors that generate very little heat and thus don't require a fan. And they run a LOT of software (including some pretty powerful stuff) very, very well. And I'm sure if Apple could affordably add G5s to its iMacs and ensure proper production, they would -- but I'd rather see those scarcer chips go into the systems where they're needed, in the kind of hardware they'll work in (i.e., the G5 form factor with its fans).

There's no need to trash the market for this particular computer. When it makes economic sense and production sense for Apple to add a G5 to the iMac, they will. Don't be ashamed of being a Mac user. I'd wonder instead about consumers buying PCs based on MHz and then discovering they're not as intuitive and elegant as the Mac.

yeah... mark one against your SUV analogy too... I have a 2WD SUV.... why you ask? well its a compact SUV that is more fun to drive than most any other huge honkin 4x4 and I have more room inside than a wagon, looks cooler than a minivan, and I can tow things with it and its FWD which gets me through snow with no problem.... ya know. its that "different strokes for different folks" thing i guess

I know many people who liked the original imac but didn't like being limited to 15" monitor... the 17" was big improvement and why wouldn't anyone want a 20"? You average computer user doesn't need PCI slots and many people I know with older imacs had never upgraded the exisitng RAM or if they did... it wasn't beyond 512mb so only 2 slots is not an issue really.

This post has been edited by Synthetic: Wed 19 Nov 2003, 17:21