The Brad Hole

Well, one thing worth noting - I don't think discounting the eMac for space reasons is entirely fair, as the low end PC's you're going to get will take up substantially more space and create more clutter. :)

But yes, I would imagine there are a number of folks who would gladly pay for just the lower lampshade part of an iMac, as they already have a monitor of some sort.

Then again, one has to wonder if this won't result in plenty of folks out there going that route because of pricing, and then ending up not being as happy as they could be. A big thing to many regular mac users is how happy they are with their expenditure once they have made it. They realize there was a lot more too it than they suspected. If they get exactly what they pay for, well, it might lead to a sort of 'eh' attitude.

But, rambling. In general, I agree. I wish for a G5 iMac. ;)

Hm. A Macintosh aimed at consumers that sports no built-in monitor and limited expansion capabilities. Why, this system would be Low Cost. Perhaps Apple could even call it the "LC." How innovative! ;)

"I don't think discounting the eMac for space reasons is entirely fair, as the low end PC's you're going to get will take up substantially more space and create more clutter."

This is a good point. In my case, however, I can place a headless PC or Mac under my desk as well as on top. I can't stick an eMac down there without risking kicking in the monitor. If the form factor were, say, the size of an iMac base minus a monitor, I would most likely stick it behind my current main LCD on my desk, which would be fantastic. But even if it were boxy like a PC, there's space on the floor under my desk for it.

"Then again, one has to wonder if this won't result in plenty of folks out there going that route because of pricing, and then ending up not being as happy as they could be."

This is another good point. I firmly believe that the entire current Mac lineup offers a far more pleasant out-of-the-box experience than any PC.

From a software standpoint, my brother's new Dell is a prime example: you fire it up and you're instantly barraged by some crazy AOL IM client that looks like it was the recipient of some kind of high-school skinning contest. It stands out like a sore thumb and does nothing to inspire confidence that it's not adware that you'll never be able to delete, because it wants you to do some kind of sign up registration thing (I didn't investigate it that closely). Ditto for Internet Explorer - within a month, his PC will be swimming with spyware unless he somehow finds his way to install Ad-Aware and a different browser like Firefox or Mozilla.

I believe the initial Mac experience with iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, Safari and iChat is much more sane, cohesive and user-friendly than any other offering out there, enough so that a casual user would still be pleased with his Mac purchase even if he had some sort of discomfort about having to buy a monitor.

I can't imagine any other kind of way a buyer of this proposed headless iMac might be let down, so forgive me if that's not exactly the point you're trying to make.

"Perhaps Apple could even call it the "LC.""

For the record, I had and loved the LC. :-) I played Marathon in a postage-stamp sized window with everything cranked to low. On the bright side, it cranked at Maelstrom. :-)

My Apple-owning history goes like this:

* 1983 - Apple II+
* 1986 - Apple IIe ("Enhanced")
* 1991 - Mac LC (got the IIe card for it as well)
* While at college, my parents bought an LC2 and LC3 for themselves, which I inherited years later when they upgraded.
* 1994 Mac LC 475 (the first bought with entirely my own money)
* 1995 A cheesy PowerPC 50MHz 601 upgrade card for the LC
* 1996 PowerBase 200 tower from PowerComputing
* 1997 A G3 upgrade card for the PowerBase
* 1999 B&W G3/300 (a long-term loaner from Apple provided by Westlake)
* 2000 iBook 300 graphite
* 2001 PowerMac G4 733 (I had this a whopping 7 months)
* 2001 iBook 500 (dual-USB)
* 2001 PowerMac G4 DP/800 - my current Mac
* 2004? Aspyr-supplied G5/2.5 DP (on order)

I no longer have the G4/733 - sold that to Suellen. So my only semi-current Mac, aside from my main machine, is the iBook, With a crippling Rage 128 card, it's not usable for low-end testing of current games.

I'm ready and willing to spend my money on an iMac "LC" if such a thing comes to fruition. Help me spend my money, Apple. :-)

I certainly wouldn't mind a low cost Mac, to replace my 4.5 year old iMac, but I would need a display as well. The one in my iMac is getting darker and more 'wiggly' all the time, and the only other monitor I have is that 14" Packard-Bell monitor (1994) that I once used with my Performa 6400, and my brother is using it with his PC again after his 17" CRT died on him.

Am I hearing "CUBE" again?

I'd love to see a low end, two-piece, dirt-cheap, replacement for the eMac. I'd like to see it with a 1.25 GHz G4, a decent video card, a $499 price tag, and the option of buying a $199 15" LCD display for it (or any larger one, of course).

I think Apple can do this. Educational pricing on an eMac is $625 (in an eight-pack), and Apple keeps its profit margins fairly high, even for education. If they cut the profit margins to a bare minimum (which is how the other PC makers do it, although you can't do it forever - just ask Gateway), they should be able to get pretty close. I don't think removing the CRT will save a lot of money per Mac (maybe $60), but it will help some, and it will give them that all-important sub-$500 computer. And actually, I think if they go "too cheap", they risk damaging their image as a quality computer company. $399 sounds too cheap to me. $499 sounds like I'll be getting something for my money.

I think Apple can only really afford to do this at the very low-end. They should drop the eMac name from it, and call it an iMac too, since that has better name recognition (and I'm all for a G5 model as a high-end iMac). If they can produce such a Mac, they should advertise it to the max, and push it as hard as possible to suck in as many new buyers as they can. (I believe it's called a loss-leader.) Then, in a couple of years, hopefully those people will want to replace it with a spiffy new G5 iMac, or add a PowerBook, or whatever.

But Steve never listens to me. Apple partnering with BMW for the iPod is a perfect example of Apple's elitism, and they're doomed to be a niche market. I guess it's just as well, having a 2% market share cuts down on the viruses we have to...

Hang on a sec...

...1.9% market share, cuts down on the viruses we have to deal with. (I have got to learn to type faster. 1.8... 1.7...)

"Am I hearing "CUBE" again?"

Perhaps, but you're definitely not hearing $2299 (later dropped to $1999) price tag. ;-)

You know, I've always felt the Cube would have been a success if it had better multimedia support. Namely, if it could have acted as the digital hub for your house, be a DVD player, output to your TV, your computer monitor, so on and so forth.... not only does the concept sound really cool to me (A tiny low hassle mac to just plug all this stuff into) at the very LEAST it would have given the cube a USE. Because the problem is, when the Cube was first introduced, I remember thinking 'Oh man, this is so cool!'. And then, when folks started asking me what it was for, then I was sort of stumped. What indeed? Pricey, same thing as a tower, not as expandable. Sure, it took less space, but isn't that what laptops are for?

Of course, another tack would be what Brad suggests - a really cheap cube! That sounds pretty nifty.

Ok, let's say this happens. Then, you have the immediate problem of what monitors will this headless iMac support? Will it support a higher quality Apple monitor, which ones? What kind of video card will be needed to facilitate this. Who will be mad when they A. have to pay for more video card than they need, and B. can't run their 25" monitor because the video is too skimpy. What kind of a hit will the G5 towers take from business's trying to get by on the cheap for their publishing, and the disappointment that may occur from those buyers expecting more power and speed than these machines will provide. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in going this route. Apple's never going to attract the low end, and if someone just can't afford a new tower, there's the used market. As far as discounting the eMac, there's a lot more to this machine than is generally recognized. The space used is really no more than a traditional monitor, and it alleviates the complications inherent in creating a headless model.

You've hit the spot I've been scratching for a long time. While many still focus on the low end, I believe Apple needs a more flexible solution. The range of desktop customers under the high end Pro machines could be served by a single physical design. The low end could be served with low cost video cards, cheaper processor, fewer IO options, and less memory. By making the design with expansion slots a purchaser could customize their order such as Dell does. This would utilize the advertised low cost deisgn a starting point to spending more by the customer.

I don't want to imply the design shouldn't be outstanding, or even a single product form. The internals should be similar to avoid costs associated with trying to produce too many specific designs of limited market potential and confusion.

Conversion to G5s and associated technology should promote such a strategy by introducing smaller Pro models in the price range of the iMacs using discounted screen options with the purchase. A wireless keyboard and mouse is a manditory feature, simplifying box design while improving their attraction and flexibility.

The corporate and institutional markets would also be easier target for these flexible boxes to as well.

"Then, you have the immediate problem of what monitors will this headless iMac support?"

Oh come on, that is the lamest argument I've ever heard. G5 towers have the same problem. Every headless Windows box has the same problem. Computers have specs. Apple can list them (like they do with every computer) saying "supports up to 1600x1200 @ 70hz, VGA or DVI connector required". And who cares if the G5 towers take a hit from people buying Apple's cheaper computers. Apple makes profit on everything they sell, not just expensive computers. Plus, people who need and want the big towers will still buy them. There's plenty to differentiate them. Should Honda stop selling the Civic because it cuts into sales of the Accord? There are plenty of people who want a second or third Mac but don't need the expense or power of a tower and already have a monitor. There are plenty of PC users who have monitors and see no reason to pay extra when switching to a Mac. The inexpensive headless Mac is the single-most clamored-for product in Apple history. WHY oh why won't they just make it?

Get a used G4 tower of appropriate speed and # of processors. Replace the video card with the one you need. Mount it under your desk. Plug in your monitor. I usually charge for this advice.

"Then, you have the immediate problem of what monitors will this headless iMac support? Will it support a higher quality Apple monitor, which ones? What kind of video card will be needed to facilitate this."

It would support DVI/VGA-out, like every other machine on the earth, so the issue of which monitor is mostly moot. The only factor for the video card is the amount of VRAM, and 32MB is more than enough for all 2D display resolutions out there at the moment, and adequate for low-end gaming. A cheap 32M card is currently the low-end right now - I don't think it's possible to buy a less-feature-packed desktop video card, at least for the Mac.

"As far as discounting the eMac, there's a lot more to this machine than is generally recognized. The space used is really no more than a traditional monitor, and it alleviates the complications inherent in creating a headless model."

If you, like me, have a switchbox, then adding a headless model would mean you'd share your monitor via the switchbox with your existing setup.

"Get a used G4 tower of appropriate speed and # of processors. Replace the video card with the one you need. Mount it under your desk. Plug in your monitor. I usually charge for this advice."

I assume you haven't priced used G4 towers recently? A G4 tower with the video card and processor that is equivalent to the low-end eMac is currently several hundred dollars more expensive on eBay than a new eMac. If I add your fee on top of that.. ;-)

"Mount it under your desk. Plug in your monitor. I usually charge for this advice."

I think this whole article is just to much 'cheap, cheaper, cheapest" focused.

I have a 20"iMac internal bluetooth and airport card. And this is by far the best machine I have owned; and I have had more than a few.

"Mount it under your desk."
Yeah well I have my harman/kardon isub down there and I'm not to sure my wireless mouse would reach.

If you want to have fun pay for it!!!:-)

Hmm, well I've had a theory about this for several years now. There can be no denying that the lost-cost headless Mac is THE missing link in Apple's lineup, and has been since the 603ev went the way of the dodo.
As Apple has emerged from its shell of the 4-square product lineup (iX, PowerX; XMac, XBook), it has grown in every direction but. Why?
Well I have no credentials beyond being a long-time Apple-watcher and MacDrooler, but I believe it harks back to a lie that's been in the last couple of Stevenotes: We have completed the transition, WE MADE IT!!! (Stevefans cheer)
I don't necessarily mean that there's too many folk in OS 9, but rather that X is only recently become the true representative of Apple's renowned "ease-of-use," and in the meantime the G5 has not been the panacea Apple hoped in terms of putting the "G4 is stuck at 500 MHz" scenario behind us.
To get to the point, I don't think Apple WANTS a flood of new users and all that marketshare (dare we dream of recapturing 5%?) until they have supply issues ironed out. Steve really only has one shot at pulling out of the marketshare nosedive, and can't afford a memorable debacle. We all know why the 2.5's took so long, and it doesn't take much imagination to figure out why they were released without fanfare. 3 by summer?
"Come on in, the water's fine?" Not yet. He needs to be able to say that before the Oklahoma Macrush is declared. I think that we're closer than we've ever been, but now that X is ready, hardware supply has to be capable of volume-on-demand.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Steve may have "issues" over the public's rejection of his precious Cube, but he's been fairly good with Apple's bottom line in his second tenure. With the music initiatives earning him breathing room on that front (at least until the Beatles win), I think we will see less daring and fewer risks on the Mac front. The headless iMac (the iMac mini?) will come when they have the volume production capacity, and probably some performance headroom to keep the G5 clearly above it- burn some incense or whatever voodoo you do over the Fishkill plant!