Apple to drop sub-$500 Mac bomb at Expo

ThinkSecret.com ^ | December 28, 2004 | "Nick dePlume"

[HAL9000]

December 28, 2004 - With iPod-savvy Windows users clearly in its sights, Apple is expected to announce a bare bones, G4-based iMac without a display at Mac Expo on January 11 that will retail for $499, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret.

The new Mac, code-named Q88, will be part of the iMac family and is expected to sport a PowerPC G4 processor at a speed around 1.25GHz. The new Mac is said to be incredibly small and will be housed in a flat enclosure with a height similar to the 1.73 inches of Apple's Xserve. Its size benefits will include the ability to stand the Mac on its side or put it below a display or monitor.

Along with lowering costs by forgoing a display (Apple's entry-level eMac sells for $799 with a built-in 17-inch CRT display), the so-called "headless" iMac will allow Apple's target audience -- Windows users looking for a cheap, second PC -- to keep their current peripherals or decide on their own what to pair with the system, be it a high-priced LCD display or an inexpensive display. Sources except the device to feature both DVI and VGA connectivity, although whether this will be provided through dual ports or through a single DVI port with a VGA adapter remains to be seen.

The new Mac is expected to have a Combo drive only, but possibly an upgrade path to a SuperDrive at a higher price. It is unclear how big the hard drive capacity will be, although sources indicate it will be between 40GB and 80GB.

Other expected features of the iMac include: * 256MB of RAM * USB 2.0 * FireWire 400 * 10/100 BASE-T Ethernet * 56K V.92 modem * AirPort Extreme support

In terms of software, Apple will include a special iLife suite (minus iDVD) as well as AppleWorks, sources believe.

The new Mac is expected to be introduced by Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs at his keynote address on Tuesday, January 11, but is not expected to be available until later in the first quarter. Sources indicate "issues" have arisen in production of the new Mac, but that Apple never planned on shipping the new device immediately upon introduction. The plan is to air freight the new model from its manufacturing plants in Asia for at least the first three months of shipments, sources report.

The announcement of the new, inexpensive Mac will be a dream come true for Mac aficionados who have begged and pleaded for years to see just such a PC. Until now, the company has downplayed speculation that it would get into the low-end PC market. "In terms of our pricing, I feel very good about where each of our product lines are priced," Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO, said in October. "To date, we have chosen not to compete in the sub-$800 desktop market and have put that R&D investment in expanding our products in the music area, in software, and in hardware."

So what has changed to motivate Apple in producing a low-cost Mac? In a word, iPod.

"Think of your traditional iPod owner," said a source. "This new product will be for a Windows user who has experienced the iPod, the ease of use of the iTunes software, and has played around with a Mac at an Apple retail store just long enough to know he'd buy one if it were a little cheaper."

Apple executives announced on October 13 that 45% to 50% of its retail stores customers bought a Mac as their first PC or were new to the platform in the fiscal fourth-quarter. The company has refused to divulge more exacting figures on iPod buyers who also buy a Mac, for competitive reasons.

According to sources, internal Apple surveys of its retail store customers and those buying iPod's showed a large number of PC users would be willing to buy a Mac if it were cheap enough, less of a virus carrier (which all Macs already are), and offered easier to use software solutions not available on Windows-based PCs. Now, Apple feels they have the answer.

Apple has been working on the low-end Mac for almost a year, sources report. Indications are Apple has been working mostly on finding the right mix of price, performance and features that would motivate Windows users to consider a Mac, and less on the actual engineering of the product. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to design a bare-bones PC," said one source familiar with the project. "What it takes is a team of marketing and software experts to find the right mix to convince Windows users to buy a Mac at a price that is not much more than the cost of an iPod."

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."

[ReignOfError]

Thanks for commenting on the obvious. I thought I was alone in wondering who in the world would want a computer without a monitor. It's kind of like buying a television without a screen -- although you can always buy it seperately.

Actually, it's more like buying a stereo without speakers. Not a problem if you like the ones you have.

[general_re]

Megahertz ratings are not the be-all and end-all of performance measures, obviously - they're not even a very good one, really - but all the benchmarks I've ever seen show a single P4 substantially faster than a dual G4 for the vast majority of computing tasks. The link you gave doesn't lead to the actual results of this head-to-head comparison, so I still don't see any reason to believe otherwise.

With Altivec, the G4 is capable of some surprising results for certain tasks, but most Mac software still isn't optimized for Altivec, and there is a whole huge class of computing problems that simply aren't vectorizable, making Altivec optimizations impossible. I don't think it's an accident that Moto/IBM/Apple never submitted official SPEC results for the G4 - unofficial results I've seen suggest that it would have been somewhat embarrassing. The G5, on the other hand, is a quite capable chip, and depending on what your needs are, a dual G5 may be a fine replacement for a single P4.

[HAL9000]

What all did you have in mind?

Let's benchmark your Windows PC against my Mac. As the challenged party, you are customarily entitled to propose the test - but I would suggest the usual suite of computationally-intensive benchmarks. We'll run the tests, compare normalized results, and determine the performance ratio per CPU cycle.

I have a PowerMac with dual 2.0 Ghz IBM G5 processors running Mac OS X 10.3.7. I'm interested to see how it compares against your machine.

I'll be compiling a BSD kernel while you decide.

[general_re]

I have a PowerMac with dual 2.0 Ghz IBM G5 processors running Mac OS X 10.3.7. I'm interested to see how it compares against your machine.

Won't tell us very much about the G4, will it?

[LibertarianInExile]

Holy CRAP! My next computer might be a MAC!

I haven't ever bought a Mac, because they're just too expensive--but they work SOOOO much better than clones...I'm all on that if this rumor is true!

[steveo]

yawn

[HAL9000]

Won't tell us very much about the G4, will it?

I have a 700 MHz eMac G4 sitting next to the G5. I have a G3 iBook in the kitchen. Although I'm spoiled by the G5, I still use those other computers daily.

My home is filled with computers, including an antique 1978 Apple II. It still works, but we can skip the benchmark tests for it.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I didn't -- isn't this what the guy asks?

Don't touch it... don't even point at it!

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[MarkL]

1.25 Ghz G4? My 4 year old Athlon XP would destroy that.

Actually, it probably wouldn't. The G4 is a PowerPC RISC processor, and if you just compare the processor clock speeds, it's even more whacky than if you try to compare the (true) clock speed of an AMD processor to that of a P-4.

Depending on the task, the G-4 can do similar tasks at 1.5 - 3 times the speed of an Intel processor.

You'd really be shocked to see the graphics performance of a 700MHz iBook!

Mark

[general_re]

If you'll cast your eyes back a bit, you'll notice that I objected to the claim that, clock-for-clock, the G4 was twice as fast as a P4. Am I to understand you wish to examine some other proposition instead?

Wise move.

[MarkL]

Anyway, I was wrong, the Dell apparently does ship with an el-cheapo monitor. OTOH, to get the Dell up to the likely feature set of the Mac would probably cost as much as that monitor. Updgrading XP Home Edition to something a bit closer to the Mac OS's abilities (XP Pro) would almost buy you a new monitor in itself.

Something else to read carefully is the statement of warranty. On the really low priced Dells, if you look carefully, you'll see a 1 year tech support warranty (for telephone support only), and you get a 90 day warranty on the hardware. You can upgrade the warranty, but it will cost extra. This is only on the Dimension line.

Mark

[af_vet_1981]

A $499 Mac. Apple will sell tons of these things. Bushels.

Pecks

[general_re]

That's new. Anyway, "upgrading" to a one year warranty is $17, which probably won't break the bank for people concerned about such things.

[MarkL]

That's new. Anyway, "upgrading" to a one year warranty is $17, which probably won't break the bank for people concerned about such things.

I didn't read too much of the small print. I don't deal with Dimensions. I work on the Optiplex and server systems.

They're pretty good systems. I'm still in love with the Compaq (now HP) Proliant servers. I'm SO glad that HP discontinued their NetServer line.

Mark

[general_re]

Same here - we have what amounts to an open order for Optiplex GX workstations where I work. Almost 10,000 of them, last I recall.

[MarkL]

Same here - we have what amounts to an open order for Optiplex GX workstations where I work. Almost 10,000 of them, last I recall.

I'm on the other end. The dealer I work for sells them. I do warranty service on them.

They're good machines, for the most part. Dell's really eaten the lunch of both HP and Compaq on the workstation side, although IBM is starting to come back a bit. Nearly every client of ours has switched from HP or Compaq workstations to Optiplex. Still, Proliants really do rule the server rooms. I love those machines, although the management capabilites have dropped off a bit since HP took over (I liked being able to get the serial numbers off of the hard drives from the diagnostic "Survey" output!)

Mark

[ambrose]

You overpaid. I just got the same system for $399 at CompUSA.

[ambrose]

Model 100609 Minitower
Intel Pentium 4 Processor, 2.5GHz, 512MB RAM, 160GB Hard Drive, 2X DVD-RW and 52X CD-Rom Drives, Windows XP Home Edition

Manufacturer: Systemax


Mfg Part #: 100609


Product Number: 307570


Original Price:
$899.97 (44% Off)†


$499.98

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=307570&pfp=BROWSE

[ambrose]

Here's the system I just bought last week, for $399 (the price was apparently an ad discount to get foot traffic... the price is now $549).

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=316197&pfp=SEARCH

The Powerhouse.

Stimulate your senses with the PC that offers pure multimedia pleasure. The T3062 was born to perform and is packed with features that’s sure to please the most discriminating PC user and gamer: a super-charged AMD Athlon™ XP 3000+ processor, Microsoft® Windows® XP Home, 160 GB hard drive, 512 MB memory, built-in Ethernet, DVD+/-RW drive, 8-in-1 digital media manager, amplified speakers – all backed by eMachines’ world-class support. Plus with the NVIDIA® GeForce4™ MX Graphics chip and nForce™ 6-channel audio, your gaming and movie-watching experience will be taken to a whole new level. eMachines has created a revolutionary PC that has it all: power, reliability and style. And it’s sensibly priced, too. So hold on to your mouse…and let the gaming begin.

[hchutch]

I bought my T2865 in November of 2003.