# $499 Mac on MWSF'05?



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 29, 2004)

Think Secret rumors that there will be a bare bones, G4-based iMac without a display announced at the MWSF on January 11. This mac will retail for $499!!


			
				http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0412expo2.html said:
			
		

> 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.


Sounds very interesting to me.


----------



## diablojota (Dec 29, 2004)

I think this would be great to entice "switchers" that complain about pricing. Heck, I might even get one as an internet machine at home, if this turns out to be true.
I think apple finally realized that they can't turn their heads to the growing requests of having a cheap, headless Mac.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 29, 2004)

I would buy it at once, if it's really in the size of a bare bones pc and silent enough. A G4 1.25ghz is still a very fast processor and would deal with many many standard tasks.  And now imagine it to be small enough to not be found under your tv.. Ahhhhh, this would be really nice.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Dec 29, 2004)

If this is true, I can see quite a few of these being bought to be used as Media Servers.


----------



## DJ Rep (Dec 29, 2004)

hmm does anyone smell Mac OS Media edition (but obviously not called that)
Think about it a powerful (fairly) silent, stylish, computer with 802.11n next-gen wireless that would sync with the next version of airport express that can stream video as well as audio (lets call AEV) so that you could just plug your tv and your stereo into it, and then have this media box anywhere in the house and as long as you have a AEV plugged into a tele and a stereo in wireless range of the media box or one of the routing wireless stations you could stream your videos anywhere in the house.
mmmmmmmm ibox...but I'm just dreaming;-)


----------



## chevy (Dec 29, 2004)

It would be a great central machine, mixing juke-box and DVD player features. Just misses the TV-Radio tuner to be perfect.


----------



## DJ Rep (Dec 29, 2004)

> Just misses the TV-Radio tuner to be perfect.


Ever heard of internet radio  that would be perfect or a DAB tuner as well


----------



## chevy (Dec 29, 2004)

Internet radio is still in its infancy !

And any info about the graphic card ? Think secret says this machine is a mix of simple hardware and good software (iLife), but will it be "game compatible" (read Doom3) ?


----------



## Pengu (Dec 29, 2004)

doubt it.


----------



## DJ Rep (Dec 29, 2004)

> Internet radio is still in its infancy !


What do you mean by that? I've found most internet radio to be great, all they need is a way to bring it all together under one common interface (shoutcast/icecast style) and make it more accessible like, dare I say it, windows media player did for internet radio, then FUN TIME!


----------



## diablojota (Dec 29, 2004)

Let's hope Apple will at least set it up where you can change out the graphics card.

I think Apple could make more revenue and money if they also sold upgrades on their site (e.g. video cards, etc) and at least let you upgrade these. I think for a headless mac this could be a good step.


----------



## chevy (Dec 29, 2004)

Yeah, Internet radio is fun... but how many of these are making money ? How many provide local news ? How many provide real journalism (you know, investigation) ? As far as I know most Internet radio are just streaming music 24/7. That's fun.


----------



## DJ Rep (Dec 29, 2004)

ok point taken, maybe the local governments need to do more in that respect, all I know is the BBC streams all it's radio so there's no prob there


----------



## Jeffo (Dec 29, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> Yeah, Internet radio is fun... but how many of these are making money ? How many provide local news ? How many provide real journalism (you know, investigation) ? As far as I know most Internet radio are just streaming music 24/7. That's fun.




All i want is streaming music.  if they bring in the other stuff that will invite ads to come in too.


----------



## Jeffo (Dec 29, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Think Secret rumors that there will be a bare bones, G4-based iMac without a display announced at the MWSF on January 11. This mac will retail for $499!!
> 
> Sounds very interesting to me.



if this is the case i would get one definately.


----------



## MBHockey (Dec 29, 2004)

If this is thrue, i would have a legitimate argument to replace the family's eMachine (UGH!) with a Mac!


----------



## drunkmac (Dec 29, 2004)

Engadget reported this sub-$500 mac too. I'd buy it quicker than you will blink in an eye sir! heh. Seriously though, do not expect gaming on this thing. Thats what the G5 is for.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 29, 2004)

Damn thing costs less than my iPod.


----------



## fryke (Dec 29, 2004)

Damn thing is a rumour so far, not a product. So give your iPod a hug.


----------



## chevy (Dec 29, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Damn thing costs less than my iPod.



Try to carry this virtual damn thing on your arm during your morning footing !


----------



## mindbend (Dec 29, 2004)

At first I was like, here we go again with this stupid headless Mac thing. But after reading the thinksecret article, I think I'm actually sold on the idea for its intended audience.

For one, (assuming it exists) it's not a gaming box and will not even pretend to be one. Apple will never win over hardcore (or even softcore) gamers, so they're correct to just ignore them. If you really like playing games, you're far better off with a PC or a console.

My prediction is that (again, if this thing comes out), is that women will be the largest buying percentage. I'm thinking it will be marketed as a simple, super easy to use all-in-one (think iLife) solution to typical media needs (music, photos, video, web, etc.) plus all the other typical stuff. It will be sold as an iPod companion (the perfect place to manage all your iPod content). It will be elegant and almost cute, but not too cute. Just cute enough to get women to look. I wouldn't even be completely surprised to see a slightly modified OS (something like the Simple Finder maybe).

This thing will basically be the Cube done right (cheaper and better, though maybe not as cool looking). Teh Cube, as we all attest, was very cool, but just way overpriced, underpowered, and conflicting with an existing product line. This basic Mac has none of those flaws (on paper).

I have no use for it (even though it's probably better than half the machines we use here at the office), but I sure hope a hell of a lot of other people do.

I'll predict a medium-size hit. Far better than the Cube, but nowhere near as successful as the iMac.

Now what I REALLY want to hear for the keynote is 3 GHZ G5s.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 29, 2004)

I predict it will be severely limited in upgrade options.  Of course, the hard drive will probably be replaceable (maybe not Apple-supported, but for such a cheap machine, it will definitely use the ATA or SATA standard drives) and the RAM will be upgradable (probably with only 2 slots for a max of 1 or 2 GB), but that's probably about it.

I'd bet that the video card will be a lower-end NVidia card that will be non-upgradable, like the iMac G5.

My jury's still out on the optical drive... Slot loading?  Tray loading?  Upgradable?


----------



## Pengu (Dec 29, 2004)

So what about optical digital sound?


----------



## symphonix (Dec 29, 2004)

Yeah, the optical digital sound is probably going to appear, since it has proven to be quite well done on the Airport Express and the iMac, and I think the production cost of the connection will be quite managable now. In fact, I'd suspect it'll find its way onto the PowerBooks within the next few months. I'm not sure if it'll appear on the PowerMacs, since these typically are aimed at high-end users who want lots of different connection options.

I also suspect that Apple *might* have a deal going with Monster Cable which *might* involve Apple putting these connectors wherever it seems practical, and Monster provides the optical connection cable (at typical Monster prices ... which are pure evil). I haven't confirmed this one way or the other though.

If there is any truth to this ThinkSecret report, then I'm pretty excited about what it could mean. Now can we please try and keep it in perspective, though? It's a low-end consumer machine. We've already had calls for 802.11n "next generation" wireless, an interchangable high-end graphics card, upgradable optical drive, and so on. If it exists, it will not have any of these features. It won't need them either.

The only wish I really like the sound of is Mindbend's quote: "It will be elegant and almost cute, but not too cute. Just cute enough to get women to look." -- Well said!

My prediction, if such a device exists: The only upgradable components will be the RAM and *maybe* the hard drive. Bluetooth and Airport Extreme will be optional. Ethernet will be 10/100 and it will have Firewire 400. The OS will be standard MacOSX, though there may be a few very minor "tweaks" to the feature set. It will have ONE type of processor and the smallest possible range of BTO options (maybe only two choices, with BlueTooth and Airport Extreme or Without).

Of course, it may well be still a day-dream, but I think we're all agreed that this is the direction Apple needs to be looking in order to reach the majority of the consumer market.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 29, 2004)

Yay! The Apple Pippin is coming back! Yay!


----------



## Jeffo (Dec 30, 2004)

I aggree that it will have to have a very basic feature set to come in at those prices and i think that also in order to keep the cost at that level they would have to use standard items such as ram and hd and video connections and so on.  it would not surprise me if it only had one ram slot that maxed out at 1gig either, would be much better if there were two slots though.  it also would not surprise me if nothing about it was user changable, you buy it like you want it and it stays like that.  the way i see it happening is that the ram and the drive are the only two things that will vary in specs.    I dont even think it will have a bluetooth option, unless they are going to market it for a media center type of thing.  Here is what i think the configs will be for the offerings:

config 1:
low end video
256 ram
60gig hd
AE ready
no bluetooth

config 2:
will bump up ram to 512
and 80gig hd

config 3:
custom order

I think that they would be smart to keep production costs down to offer very little configurations of it, plus if it does take off good they will have an easier time to keep up on production runs of "all" the models they offer.

Edit:  my reasoning behind the HD sizes is to that you could have the entire contents of the ipod on the harddrive and still have room left for the OS and swap and so on.  if you have the 40 gig ipod or lower the config 1 is what is needed.  if you have the 60gig ipod the config 2 or 3 would be best.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Dec 30, 2004)

Stupid question, but I'm not 100% sure of the answer because I've never tried it:

Is it possible to use a Powerbook as the display for a PowerMac (or this rumoured headless iMac)?

Kap


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 30, 2004)

Nope, there's no "video-in" port.  Only "video-out."


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 30, 2004)

But you could remotely control it, which could kinda count as a display. I am using my pc this way and saved money and space on a screen..


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 30, 2004)

Wow, guys, don't get my hopes up here.



			
				Ripcord said:
			
		

> I still won't be satisfied unless they put out a $500-or-so "headless eMac"...
> 
> It would just be a good idea for so many reasons...


http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47066&page=2&pp=15


			
				Ripcord said:
			
		

> DON'T expect Apple's marketshare to grow significantly in the next year or so. Until they do something drastic or interesting like producing a $500 unit (or, say, they get lucky and 4Ghz G6s come out years ahead of comparable units from other vendors), you'll continue to see market share hang or dwindle from the current rock-bottom 2.8%.


(I believe I was right on that one?  They've sold more units but has market share grown at all?  Hopefully I'm wrong, actually)

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44622&page=2&pp=26

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44922&page=2&pp=11

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44853&page=2&pp=22

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47770&page=2&pp=21

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46849&page=2&pp=20

...Wow, I didn't realize how many times I'd posted this.  Let's hear it for being consistent =)

Those are just the ones in the last 6 months apparently, I'm guessing they might put out the unit just to get me to stop drolling on about it =)

I just hope it's true.  Thinksecret hasn't had the best track record with their MWSF predictions (what site has?), and it seems a bit out of character for Apple, but let's say I'd be very pleasantly surprised.

I do think it'd resculpt the Mac market and breathe new life.  It's also something they *must* do to survive (and assuming they have *any* aspirations to grow back out of the "niche" market, which is turbulant to say the least - though they do a VERY good job of riding through the storm).  I'm convinced of it.


----------



## mindbend (Dec 31, 2004)

The nice thing about this product is that it doesn't risk cannabilizing their other products. It's not a power machine. It's not going to have the all-in-one uber coolness of the iMacs. It's not even a G5. It's not a laptop. 

People with the money are not going to buy this machine. They'll buy a way cooler and better iMac. But for those who have seen the light and realize the benefits of OS X and have reasonable needs for their computer, this might in fact be a good idea for Apple.

The trick is that it needs to be good enough (read:fast enough and "pleasant" enough to use) so that its audience finds it to be a good experience and will want to upgrade to a better (more profitable for Apple) Mac next time. By the "specs", it looks to be just good enough I would think.


----------



## smithy (Dec 31, 2004)

Well basically i don't know about you's but don't you think this is leading to the next release of the emac. Basically this 500 dollar unit (around nearly a grand in AUD for me ) is around the same specs as a eMac just without a monitor. From what i have heard it is a G4 1.25ghz with 256mb ram probly around 32mb video and a combo. (thats obviosuly not all of the specs but yet the basics). However Apple need to things to make this thing work 1. "The Worlds Slimmest Tower" 2. Slim and small enough but with power.

If it will have the same specs as the eMac there will have to be either a 1.6 G4 emac come out or maybe a G5. Cause if you already have a monitor why would you spend more money yet for another one with a tower in it when you can have just a small tower for alot less of the price of an eMac. They will have to release a new eMac at the 2005 expo or whatever the expo is called. 

One last thing in reply to the post above: My eMac loaded up with 1gb of ram can be sometimes slow but still is powerfull enough to  run alot of programs multi tasking so it shoudl be powerfull enough. I think apple should just probly make the Ram in the new tower Q88 thingy (whatever its called) probly max 768 or make the new eMac 2gb maxed out.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Dec 31, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> But you could remotely control it, which could kinda count as a display. I am using my pc this way and saved money and space on a screen..


You mean with Apple Remote Desktop?

Kap


----------



## chevy (Dec 31, 2004)

The THING plus a low cost 17" LCD would be the best eMac replacement. And it will eat some of the iMac market, even if it is really lower specs. 'cause some of the iMac buyers are not looking for high specs, they just need a Mac at home.


----------



## Satcomer (Dec 31, 2004)

Thing problem with the rumored low cost headless Mac is this same exact rumor was circulated last year around this time. It is the same wishful hope  Mac addicts have had for years to grab market share.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Dec 31, 2004)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> Thing problem with the rumored low cost headless Mac is this same exact rumor was circulated last year around this time. It is the same wishful hope Mac addicts have had for years to grab market share.


One thing about this year though - it's the first year I can think of where Macs *already* seemed cheap (to me, at any rate).

The 12" PB, iBooks, eMacs and iMacs all seem dirt cheap to me (esp. with Panther/Tiger and iLife preinstalled).

It doesn't seem all that unreasonable for Apple to come out with an even cheaper alternative.

Kap


----------



## Jason (Dec 31, 2004)

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

its now being reported by the "big boys"


----------



## blue&whiteman (Dec 31, 2004)

I would buy one for sure.  that much power for that price is just incredible.


----------



## symphonix (Dec 31, 2004)

> One thing about this year though - it's the first year I can think of where Macs already seemed cheap (to me, at any rate).



Yeah, it was only a little over three years ago that the entry level iBook cost significantly more than what the top level PowerBook costs today.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Dec 31, 2004)

I doubt this rumor will actually pan out. It's been "reported" several times before. That said, if this Mac was geared towards being a "living room" media PC, it would be the next killer app for Apple. With iPhoto, iTunes and iDVD, you are basically managing your music, photos, and video footage. These are mediums that are actually more geared towards the moms and pops of the world. And since the TV is the center of the home these days, having mom and pop be able to hear their music on their TV audio system, watch and manage their photo library on their TV, and have the device record their TV shows, ala TiVO - is a no brainer. Windows Media Center PCs cost twice as much, and are not nearly as elegant as the iApps are. This would be the perfect place for this Mac.

That said, Jobs has also routinely said he doesn't see the convergence of the living room TV and the computer, so I doubt this would be the intended usage for this device. 

Still, people have been clamoring for a sub $500 headless Mac for sometime. It would be nice to see Apple finally deliver.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 31, 2004)

I normally don't bite when rumors like this come around -- I find I'm more surprised and satisfied with the keynotes when I don't know or expect anything.

With that said, this is one rumor I'm falling for.  The fact that Apple has specifically sued people over leaking information regarding "Q88" (apparently, codename for the headless, sub-$500 machine) leads me to believe there may be some truth in this one.  

I agree with serpico -- I don't think this computer will be marketed as a multimedia device meant to integrate with your stereo or TV; rather, just a low-cost, entry-level Macintosh.  It's cheap enough and simple enough to mass produce immediately, and won't cost Apple an arm and a leg if it fails.  If it fails, hey, Steve was right -- there's not much demand or need for a super low-cost Macintosh, but if it succeeds, then it's priced low enough to possible entice a few more "switchers."

I'm limping along with a 500MHz G4 machine that lacks even an AGP port.  I'd definitely spring for a $500 1.25GHz G4 machine that I can slap a big hard drive in -- I'm a patient guy and don't need a dual 2GHz G5 machine to do my heavy PhotoShop work in, and going from 500MHz to 1.25GHz would be a great leap.


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 31, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> The fact that Apple has specifically sued people over leaking information regarding "Q88" (apparently, codename for the headless, sub-$500 machine)



Just curious - where did this info come from?  I'm guessing not from Thinksecret, as they're just reporting the $500 machine a few days ago, and the lawsuit occurred several weeks ago...  And besides CNN I believe they're the only ones to report on this?


----------



## King Shrek (Dec 31, 2004)

http://news.com.com/A+new+iMac+for+under+500/2100-1042_3-5508745.html?tag=nefd.lede

You know I sure hope this rumor is true.  You don't know how many times I've heard people say, "I would like to have a Mac, but I just can't afford it" *OR* "I would like to have a Mac, but I just can't justify spending the money because I don't know what I'm getting into."  Too many to count!  

Apple, I do believe you are on the right track.  A system like this could very well bring many new customers to the Mac platform by allowing them to try out the Mac without having to spend "an arm and a leg" to do so; this would help justify if they want to spend the money to buy a more powerful Mac in the near future.  I think it will also work well for those that just want to use it as a media center PC.

But Apple, you can do better.  There is a problem with this system:  It doesn't have a monitor and there are a lot of competing PCs out there that are sold at this price that come with a monitor.  I do believe it would be wise of you to bring back the 15-inch and 17-inch Cinema Displays.  Reason being, in the future you should be able to sell a system like this with a 15-inch Cinema Display for the same $499 price and allow customers to upgrade to a 17-inch Cinema Display for a little more money.  This would make it so customers can get everything they need to get started with a Mac in a one-package deal; no need for a separate monitor.

Of course this also means that you should make it an option for customers to buy a system like this without a screen for even less than $499.  Can you say "suuuuuuuuuuuuweeeeeeeeeeeeet?!"

Apple, if you want to capture some of the IBM PC market back, you've got to start thinking like a PC user.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## blue&whiteman (Dec 31, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I'm limping along with a 500MHz G4 machine that lacks even an AGP port.  I'd definitely spring for a $500 1.25GHz G4 machine that I can slap a big hard drive in -- I'm a patient guy and don't need a dual 2GHz G5 machine to do my heavy PhotoShop work in, and going from 500MHz to 1.25GHz would be a great leap.



I hear that..  although since I upgraded to 1GB ram I enjoy my machine a good deal more.  1.25ghz would be great for 500 bucks.


----------



## gollum84 (Jan 1, 2005)

I could probably buy one for my dad who is still using his Performa from 1994 that has a Cresendo 266MHz processor upgrade card in it.


----------



## Randman (Jan 1, 2005)

Yeah right. Hello? Profits. Why doesn't Apple offer a 250GB HD G5 2.5Ghz with AirPort, bluetooth, 30" Cinema Display and 60GB iPod Photo bundled for US$99 (US$59 for edu discounts)?

See, you're missing the point altogether. Apple will not think like a PC user. Apple will do its best to change the mind of PC users.

 Besides, Apple, I'm sure, has a decent idea of market realities. If you want a headless iMac mini, get en eMac.

 If not, it sounds very John Dvorkish and that's never a good thing.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 1, 2005)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> Just curious - where did this info come from?  I'm guessing not from Thinksecret, as they're just reporting the $500 machine a few days ago, and the lawsuit occurred several weeks ago...  And besides CNN I believe they're the only ones to report on this?



I don't know where it originated exactly, but a Google for "apple q88" shows that the rumor is [everywhere[/u] now:

http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+q88&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 1, 2005)

Randman said:
			
		

> Apple will not think like a PC user.



If this rumor holds true then they've already taken a very BIG first step.


----------



## Gnomo (Jan 1, 2005)

If Apple does release this, I think it would attract more buyers if it does not have a monitor included.

If this system is supposed to be attracting switchers, then the target audience most likely already have monitors.  Those that are adding this system to their collection, would probably do better to just add a KVM than put another monitor (no matter how thin) on their desk.  

However, I don't think it would hurt for Apple to bring back the 17" Cinema display (they are already purchasing the LCDs for the iMacs), especially if it looked like the current models, for people who don't have the $$ for the 20" or to use as a entry level monitor with this new system (if it becomes reality).


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 1, 2005)

Gnomo said:
			
		

> If Apple does release this, I think it would attract more buyers if it does not have a monitor included.



But what about buyers that don't already have a monitor, especially a Mac compatible monitor?  Why leave them out?


----------



## Gnomo (Jan 1, 2005)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> a Mac compatible monitor?


Last time I checked Apple's direction was to use DVI (an industry standard).  Apple already includes an adapter (with the PowerMacs) to connect VGA monitors to a DVI connection, I would expect apple to include this with the new barebones iMac.

I would expect Apple's direction for those in the market for a consumer grade computer to be: 
"If you don't need a monitor buy the new barebones iMac.  If you need a monitor, you can purchase the standard iMac, the eMac, the barebones iMac + a cinema display, or the barebones iMac and a monitor from a third party."


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 1, 2005)

Gnomo said:
			
		

> I would expect Apple's direction for those in the market for a consumer grade computer to be:
> "If you don't need a monitor buy the new barebones iMac.  If you need a monitor, you can purchase the standard iMac, the eMac, the barebones iMac + a cinema display, or the barebones iMac and a monitor from a third party."



The problem with this is that these days there are many dirt cheap sub-$500 PCs out there that come standard with displays.  If Apple truly wants to sway PC users over to the Mac, they are going to have to somehow do the same thing so that potential switchers can justify the cost of switching.

Do you get my drift?


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 1, 2005)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> If this rumor holds true then they've already taken a very BIG first step.



On an additional note, I'm not saying that Apple should think 100% like a PC user.  What I am saying is that Apple should walk a fine line, that is they still need to think like a Mac user in some ways to keep their current customers in their niche market happy; on the flip-side they also need to think like a PC user in some ways in order to sway millions of potential switchers to the Mac platform.     

So in other words, Apple should think like a Mac user (think different  ::love: 50% of the time and think like a PC user 50% of the time.


----------



## Randman (Jan 1, 2005)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> .  If Apple truly wants to sway PC users over to the Mac, they are going to have to somehow do the same thing so that potential switchers can justify the cost of switching.



1) OSX.

2) No spyware.

3) No viruses

4) iPod.

5) Peer pressure.

Do you get my drift?


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 1, 2005)

Randman said:
			
		

> 1) OSX.



Most PC users know little if anything about OSX, so they haven't a clue what they'd be getting into by switching.



> 2) No spyware.
> 
> 3) No viruses



Ask the average PC user about this and you will find that most are unware of it.



> 4) iPod.



Duh!  I could use that on a PC.



> 5) Peer pressure.



Hmmm.  Let me see; less than 2% market share.  What peer pressure?



> Do you get my drift?



No.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 1, 2005)

I doubt that most PC users are unaware of their PCs containing some sort of virus or spyware.  They'll obviously notice that their computers have slowed down to almost a crawl.  Case in point:  I just got a call from my father-in-law about my sister's-in-law boyfriend.  Apparently, he's having some issues with browsing on the internet that whenever he searches on google or what not, a page comes up saying that the search could not be found.  However, once he hits the Back button he's able to view the results from google that he was searching for.  I found out that he's not running any antivirus software.  Now I have to spend my time over at my wife's uncle's house resolving this problem for my sister's-in-law boyfriend.

Another situation:  I had a teacher in one of my elementary schools ask me to fix her computer.  She's a novice when it comes to computers, but she sure noticed that her computer became almost impossible to use.  I found out that it was because of spyware/adware that was installed unbeknownst to her thanks to all those crappy toolbars and such programs that Windows users are constantly bombarded with.  I spent almost the entire afternoon fixing this issue and finally getting her Windows machine back up to speed.  I could have been doing worthy with my time, like fixinf their wireless problems at the portables, but no.  Score one more negative for Microsoft and cheap Windows PCs.

And as far as antivirus software being supplied by the PC manufacturer of these sub-500 dolar PCs, that's garbage.  Usually, it's some online antivirus detector that really can't remove the virus, or it's an antivirus program evaluation copy.  I'm sorry, but I would rather be using a computer that doesn't have these issues so I can be more productive.  Heck, even Mac users have to suffer from Microsoft's lack of security thanks to Office.

I think this will be a great way to attract novice PC users to the Mac platform.  I've spoken to many PC users and eventually it all boils down to price.  As for everything else, once they get a taste of the Macintosh experience I believe they will start to see how unproductive they have been on their Windows PCs, and how equally or more productive they can be using OS X without the worry of spyware/adware or thousands of other malware.

And if they REALLY need Windows, there's always Virtual PC.  Your average user isn't looking to play Medal of Honor.  They want to surf the web, create documents, listen to music, edit pictures, and possibly make movies or music.  What better machine to do it on than a Macintosh?


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 1, 2005)

Well, I'm not saying that Windows users are unaware of the problem with spyware, adware and viruses that plague their operating system.  As a matter of fact, many Windows users are very aware of these nasty little boogers.

I'm just saying that I don't think that many Windows users are aware that the Macintosh can save them from the hassle.  I think that a lot of Windows users feel stuck and think there is no way out.

Take my own family for example; I have quite a big family.  I know for a fact that 95% of my family knows zilch about Macintoshes and they all think that Macs are for weird people.  They don't realize that Macs can save them from the many headaches that Winblows gives them.  Sad, but true.


----------



## Arden (Jan 2, 2005)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that these days there are many dirt cheap sub-$500 PCs out there that come standard with displays.  If Apple truly wants to sway PC users over to the Mac, they are going to have to somehow do the same thing so that potential switchers can justify the cost of switching.
> 
> Do you get my drift?


 Key word here is "cheap."  Apple doesn't do cheap, period.  It's like asking BMW to make a $15,000 car.  Sure, you may be able to afford a BMW all of a sudden, but it will be a really shitty one.  Same with Apple... Macs are priced the way they are because they are extremely high quality and lots of effort goes into them to making them as pristine as possible.

I still think it's amazing that they managed to squeeze a G5 processor (easily worth, oh, $600-1000) and a 17-20" LCD screen (what do they go for now, $400-1000?) into the space of a large laptop and price it at $1300-1800.  Simply astounding.  Which is why I want one.


----------



## Cat (Jan 2, 2005)

arden said:
			
		

> It's like asking BMW to make a $15,000 car.


But they do! The Mini...


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2005)

First the base Mini is $16,900
Second, the Mini is not a BMW. It just belongs to the same group.
Third, Apple has a sub $500 computer: it's named "iPod".


----------



## Cat (Jan 2, 2005)

Well, then perhaps the Mini is more like an eMac ...


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

Arden said:
			
		

> Key word here is "cheap."  Apple doesn't do cheap, period.



Tell you what. . .

Put one foot in a Mac user's shoe and the other foot in a PC user's shoe, then try to argue your point.

FWIW, Apple doesn't have a choice, but to do cheap if they want to get millions upon millions of potential switchers to switch.


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> Third, Apple has a sub $500 computer: it's named "iPod".



LOL!!!

The iPod is not a full-fledged PC.


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2005)

Pics now !
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=323032&nr=13

(BTW what is missing to the iPod to make it a full computer ? A keyboard and a mouse, ok, anything else ?)


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2005)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> Tell you what. . .
> 
> Put one foot in a Mac user's shoe and the other foot in a PC user's shoe, then try to argue your point.
> 
> FWIW, Apple doesn't have a choice, but to do cheap if they want to get millions upon millions of potential switchers to switch.



Apple is probably not looking just for users.... it's much more looking for $$$$ ! And users are only of interest if they bring nice green $$$$ !


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> Pics now !
> http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=323032&nr=13
> 
> (BTW what is missing to the iPod to make it a full computer ? A keyboard and a mouse, ok, anything else ?)



LOL!!!

Ok, this is just funny.  LOL!!!


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> Apple is probably not looking just for users.... it's much more looking for $$$$ ! And users are only of interest if they bring nice green $$$$ !



Chevy, get out that machead of yours.  Take one foot out of that Mac user's shoe and put it in a PC user's shoe; leave the other foot where it's at.  Stop thinking 100% Mac; instead think 50% Mac, 50% PC.

Ok, now go ahead and argue a point. . .


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2005)

Man, I use PC 90% of my time, I started using computers before the IBM PC was invented.

So, please define what is a computer for you.

Because if you use any reasonable definition of "computer", any current cell phone or PDA is a computer. And the iPod is a computer. Even if it does not run Windows or Word.


```
computer: 1. A device that accepts data, processes the data in accordance with a stored program, generates results, and usually consists of input, output, storage, arithmetic, logic, and control units. 2. A functional unit that can perform substantial computation, including numerous arithmetic operations or logic operations, without human intervention during a run. Note 1: This definition, approved by the Customs Council, distinguishes a computer from similar devices, such as hand-held calculators and certain types of control devices. Note 2: Computers have been loosely classified into microcomputers, minicomputers, and main-frame computers, based on their size. These distinctions are rapidly disappearing as the capabilities of even the smaller units have increased. Microcomputers now are usually more powerful and versatile than the minicomputers and the main-frame computers were a few years ago.
```
(source: http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_computer.html)


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> Man, I use PC 90% of my time, I started using computers before the IBM PC was invented.
> 
> So, please define what is a computer for you.
> 
> Because if you use any reasonable definition of "computer", any current cell phone or PDA is a computer. And the iPod is a computer. Even if it does not run Windows or Word.



~!@#$%^&*()_{}|:"<>?

I didn't argue that it wasn't a computer.  I said that it is not a full-fledged PC (like a desktop or a notebook).  DUH GEORGE!!!


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2005)

Okay.

A full fledged computer is... what ? Is an Apple I a full fledged computer ? Or did it start with the Commodore PET ? What about the Altair 8800 ? The GENIAC ?

My low cost preference goes for the Atlon 64 Linux machine, that can provide me with a super power and perfectly stable PC for less than $1000. This is a full fledge computer, that does not run games, Windows or Word, but is perfectly suited for math, science and writing.


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

You know, I can see where this is going.  It is going towards an endless loop that will keep going on and on until this thread is closed.  Your posts have absolutely no value whatsoever.  If you want to post, you should post something meaningful instead rabbling on and on with such stupidity and in the process going off-topic.

I really don't like it when other posters troll, especially moderators.  Talk about being a bad influence on others.  You are doing this just for your own entertainment and fortunately I'm not going to let you get any fun out of me.

This discussion is officially over.


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2005)

Okay, anybody else has another opinion ?


----------



## Randman (Jan 2, 2005)

Considering you can boot off your iPod, it does meet the generally accepted criteria for a monitor-less computer.

  I don't see Chevy as trolling. Quite the opposite and the many one foot in Macs, one foot in PCs talk doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 2, 2005)

Randman said:
			
		

> one foot in Macs, one foot in PCs talk doesn't make much sense to me.



Of course it doesn't make sense.  That's because you're a machead.  ::alien::


----------



## Arden (Jan 2, 2005)

What's this about shoes now?

I'm quite familiar with Windows, if that's what you mean.  Which it probably isn't.

Another thing that nobody seems to realize is that if Apple made a "headless iMac," it wouldn't be called an iMac.  The iMac is an all-in-one computer and always has been, and I think that was part of the magic of the iMac G5, how they managed to fit a G5 and an LCD screen in such a small enclosure... yet it's still an all-in-one.  A headless iMac would be called a G4 Cube Part 2, or perhaps a Cube Squared?...

Anyway, see the attachment for the current state of my shoery.


----------



## Randman (Jan 3, 2005)

iMac mini just sounds nice, doesn't it? And if it follows form and comes in a case as the minis do ...


----------



## King Shrek (Jan 3, 2005)

Arden said:
			
		

> What's this about shoes now?



It's a metaphor.

"One foot in a Mac user's shoe" gives you the ability to see things from a Mac user's point-of-view.  The "other foot in a PC user's shoe" gives you the ability to see things from a PC user's point-of-view.  ::love::


----------



## chevy (Jan 3, 2005)

I like the miniMac idea... even if I don't think Apple would buy it.

Mac LC already existed (with good success for that time).

The Cube was a fantastic gadget, but wasn't reliable enough (even if that's probably one of the computers that keeped a maximum of its value over the year).

Headless Mac... for the one who thinks different ?

It could be the new eMac if Apple also proposes a low cost 17" LCD screen (not bundled, in the $250-$350 range).


----------



## Arden (Jan 3, 2005)

I talked to Phil Schiller again today, here's what he had to say after I showed him this thread:


> We design the Mac to be useful to the widest audience of customers possible, where we differ from most companies in this business (maybe all) is that we won't stoop to making crap. There are many corners a company can cut to make a cheap PC and we won't do that. We also try to make money selling computers (it's our business) others seem willing to lose a lot of money or get out of it (like IBM). We're not going anywhere.


You're not going to get a much better assessment on Apple's position than that.


----------



## chevy (Jan 3, 2005)

Arden said:
			
		

> I talked to Phil Schiller again today, here's what he had to say after I showed him this thread:
> "We design the Mac to be useful to the widest audience of customers possible, where we differ from most companies in this business (maybe all) is that we won't stoop to making crap. There are many corners a company can cut to make a cheap PC and we won't do that. We also try to make money selling computers (it's our business) others seem willing to lose a lot of money or get out of it (like IBM). We're not going anywhere."
> You're not going to get a much better assessment on Apple's position than that.



Thanks Mr VP reporting to CEO... 





			
				www.apple.com said:
			
		

> Philip Schiller is Apples senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing and reports to Apples CEO


----------



## symphonix (Jan 3, 2005)

The quote from Phil Schiller says it all, really.  Thanks for sharing that Arden.

It stands to reason that Apple will only consider releasing a product that:
- Appeals to a given market
- Is in keeping with Apple's image as a high-quality manufacturer
- Does not unduly cut into the market for an existing Apple product.

As such, while I believe a $599 G4 based Mac, with very basic features and no included monitor might be a viable product, a sub-$500 system complete with a 17" display is just ludicrous.

And yes, I do use a PC at work so I have a shoe on each metaphorical feet. As for those people who argue that they have 80% of their feet in the Mac shoe, and 20% of their feet in PC shoes, just how many metaphorical feet do you have?


----------



## Arden (Jan 3, 2005)

Sure, no problem.

Here's what he had to say about the advertising thread:


> We do a lot of advertising for the Mac, right now it's mostly in print and web. But we have done a lot of TV before (the most recent being the launch of the G5). The tough thing with Marketing is making sure you put a lot of your money behind just a couple of things so you can make them big. If we spend a little on everything you don;t get much of a bang.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 3, 2005)

The sheer novelity of a $599 Mac will sell the the Mac faithful... that's a given. Will it attracked Windows users to give it a chance? yep. I think Apple's thought process might be... he, let's give them something that can get into cheap to try it out. If they like it... then maybe they will upgrade to a G5 or something better?!


----------



## mdnky (Jan 3, 2005)

I know at least 25 people who would probably buy one.  The number one reason they've stayed away from Macs so far is they think the current selection is too expensive.  Granted, the eMac can be had for the $800 range ($650 for special configs), but it's not something that appeals to everyone.  In fact quite a few of those people I know think it's downright ugly; and to a point I agree.

I think the eMac has seen it's day.  I'm wondering if they aren't planning this 'headless iMac', as it's been called, as a replacement.  It would probably go over better on multiple markets (Education, basic entry level, second, etc.) than the eMac.  

You also got what I call the 'shopper confusion law', which basically states that a person is inclined to spend more on two seperate items than a similar item which does both tasks.  Not always the case of course, but here I think it is.  I know a lot of people that are perplexed by the idea of an all-in-one computer.  It just doesn't seem right to them.  

So maybe instead of trying to sell a $800 computer with monitor, they'd be selling a $500 computer and a $300 monitor.  Same price, but for some reason people are attracted to the $500/$300 side.  Also nice if they already have a monitor they want to use with it.

Then there's the possibilities with Tiger Server and the Xserve.  Imagine an office or classroom with a DP G5 Xserve handling a bunch of 'them' as smart terminals.  Apple would be able to effectively compete ($$$ wise) with PCs in that area.

Right now our satellite office has 2 Win2KPro machines as worstations and an old Beige G3 Desktop acting as a File/Web server.  One of those Wintels has to act as a server for a Win-only DB/CRM program we have.  

I was going to put two nice new 20" iMac G5s in there and move one of the Win2KPro boxes over as a dedicated TopProducer server (isolated from internet and any use other than from the Remote Desktop connection with the iMacs, XP Pro installed).  Then put a DP 1.8 G5 in for File/Web/E-Mail serving and misc. use.  

Total cost was $8321   ($2474x2 for IM, $3223 for PM , $150 for XP upgrade).

Now, if I bought one of those new ones (if they arrive of course) I'd only be spending $5223  ($925* for 'it', $3223 for PM , $150 for XP upgrade).

* [ ??? Price:  $500 (base price) + $225 (1gb ram based on current eMac from 256MB cost) + $200 (for ???, call it a safety for a possible cost overrun) = $925 ]

The boss would be much happier with the $3098 savings...maybe happy enough to buy me that DP 2.5 G5 I *NEED* (really, I do! <G>) or allow me to spec the 'server' one up to the 2.5 at least for approx. $1000 more ($6223 total, $2098 savings).


IF it happens, I'll place my order the second I can for 2 for our office and 1 for myself.  Probably even grab one for my mother, it'd be perfect for her.


----------



## Cat (Jan 4, 2005)

The rumour has appeared on La Repubblica (Italian Newspaper).

They refer to it as the econo-Mac ...


----------



## Chazam (Jan 4, 2005)

Is this the same mac reported here?
Telegraph 
A mac for £260!  ::love::


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2005)

ElDiablo: I don't remember Steve saying that a cheap Mac wouldn't sell.  If they're available soon, I'll take one or two, I guess... I still have some displays lying around and that video beamer's really waiting for it.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 4, 2005)

I don't remember him saying that either, but I do remember a few remarks made about how Apple chose not to enter or actively participate in the sub-$1000 computer area purposefully -- something about how he didn't see it as "profitable."  I'll try and dig up a source or two...

At any rate, perhaps this is Apple's "toe in the water" for the sub-$1000 PC... I'll definitely look at getting one if this is all true (and I have a sneaking suspicion it is).


----------



## blue&whiteman (Jan 4, 2005)

its safe to say that i'm going to buy one.  sounds like it will maybe look like a big firewire hd.  can't wait!


----------



## cbrooks3 (Jan 5, 2005)

How many times has someone got on here a couple weeks and started blabbing on about a "Media Center" Mac with confirmed sources, yet the only Apple on top of my TV is a piece of plastic fruit? I'm not saying it's not gonna happen eventually, but I think it's too close on the heels of the new (AWESOME!!) iMac G5. (In case you couldn't tell, I really want one. Anyone want a year old iBook G4,lol  ) Anyway


----------



## chevy (Jan 5, 2005)

HP annouced a media center (Linux based). This may be a reaction to the other iPod provider.


----------



## DJ Rep (Jan 5, 2005)

The Daily Mail also annouced the rumored headless imac in todays newpaper


----------



## DJ Rep (Jan 5, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> HP annouced a media center (Linux based). This may be a reaction to the other iPod provider.


What do you mean? I thought HP and apple were friends, hence the reason why apple allowed a HP branded iPod to sell to the PC folk.
Sorry if I don't understand your statement, please could you kind of clear up exactly you mean


----------



## DJ Rep (Jan 5, 2005)

Do you mean a reaction to Apple's headless imac?
Surley this media box from HP will be Mac compatible?


----------



## chevy (Jan 5, 2005)

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/01/05/ap1739162.html


----------



## chevy (Jan 5, 2005)

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/01/05/ap1739162.html


----------



## fryke (Jan 5, 2005)

Erh... Back on topic: Whom would we blame, if Apple would _not_ introduce such a 499 or 599 USD computer?


----------



## Cat (Jan 5, 2005)

Confirmation?



> "Apple has filed a civil complaint against the owner of ThinkSecret.com and unnamed individuals who we believe stole Apple's trade secrets," Apple said in its statement. "We believe that Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet."
> 
> A Think Secret representative did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
> 
> In its suit, Apple specifically lists certain articles that contain confidential information, though it does not confirm which of the article's details are true. For example, when mentioning the report that Apple plans a "G4-based iMac without display," Apple says the article "disclosed numerous confidential details regarding the technical capabilities of Apple's unreleased computer product as well as Apple's confidential marketing plans."



From News.com.com.com


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 5, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Erh... Back on topic: Whom would we blame, if Apple would _not_ introduce such a 499 or 599 USD computer?



Why, the rumor mills, of course!

However, "Q88" has been understood to be the codename of the "headless iMac," and Apple is suing certain individual(s) over leaking information about "Q88" specifically along with another codenamed project.

That's verification enough for me.  Maybe not at the WWDC, but soon!


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 5, 2005)

They're really cracking down on these rumors.  I think it's a good thing they do though because if they don't release the products that the rumors say they will, it harms their stock prices.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 5, 2005)

Right... they also need to protect their intellectual property.  Apple likes to work on new technology and keep it secret until the final product is announced.  When people spread information about these unreleased items, it harms Apple's driving force: innovation.

Imagine if you could know what produce and what prices all the grocery stores were selling before the advertisements in the paper told you.  I worked for a grocery chain once, and they kept their printed advertisements absolute secret until the day of the press run -- no "trash" proofs were allowed to leave the building, put in dumpsters, etc.  All a competing grocery chain had to do was find out the prices before the ad, undercut the prices by one penny and that translated into hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra revenue.

Competition between similar businesses can get ugly, especially when rumors or information is leaked.  It does hurt Apple's bottom line... it causes the stock to fluctuate and allows competitors to get a peephole into Apple's design room.  Both not good.


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 5, 2005)

Cat said:
			
		

> From News.com.com.com


I just had to comment and laugh...  Why don't they just use the news.com top level domain name?  It just redirects to news.com.com.  Utterly retarded.

And I think it's healthiest for everybody to not speculate...   Enjoy your surprise.  Maybe it's kinda the same with finding out if your baby is a he or a she kinda thing...


----------



## ScottW (Jan 5, 2005)

We had rumor, but Apple's lawyers shut us up before we could even publish it. They are getting really good these days.


----------



## Arden (Jan 6, 2005)

My opinion of this computer...


----------



## fryke (Jan 6, 2005)

Hmm, that's nitpicking, Arden.  'headless' has long been used as a term for 'without display'. As in: "Can you use that server headless?" - and it makes sense if people refer to it as an iMac without a screen. I, though, just call it the 'cheap Mac' or cMac.


----------



## chevy (Jan 6, 2005)

I like the headless image because it reminds me my iMac G4 that looks like the lamp of Pixar that of course has a "head". But that's just me.

lcMac is ok too, Mac LC already existed several times, Mac C too (c for compact, not for cube). So cMac is a good idea. But we know Apple thinks different. Mac2 ? Or as everything comes from iPod now, iMac mini.


----------



## bookem (Jan 6, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> They're really cracking down on these rumors.  I think it's a good thing they do though because if they don't release the products that the rumors say they will, it harms their stock prices.




On the other hand, these rumours give them more publicity.  Filing a suit sort of confirms that Apple has at least developed these products.  The latest article is on CNet, BBC, NYTimes and many others.  How many none Apple users are aware of these products now than would have been if the rumour sites didn't publish the articles.

Cheap advertizing.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 6, 2005)

I disagree.  Apple's got plenty of publicity -- I don't think that anyone who didn't know about Apple before now knows about Apple because of these rumors.  Plus the iPod is almost a household name now... my mother had heard about iPods and knew about Apple, and didn't even know what the hell an iPod did.

Apple has had about the same amount of hooplah and rumor surrounding it for quite some time now.  This is no different -- they're just suing over it now.  CNet, BBC, NYTimes, Newsweek -- they've been reporting on Apple rumor for years now.  Newsweek has had Apple on their cover at least once (iPod & Steve Jobs).

Rumor is one thing -- reporting on leaked information is another.  If all this "Q88" stuff had remained rumor instead of leaked information, that'd be about the same amount of publicity for Apple.


----------



## mindbend (Jan 6, 2005)

As I mentioned several posts back, I used to think the idea of a sub $500 "headless" Mac was utterly stupid. I've done a 180 now.

I have a high school kid working for me after school. He's a PC guy, but I've been slowly working him toward the Mac. regardless, he heard the buzz of this rumored miniMac at school without me telling him, which was interesting. He also seemed to indicate that his peers at least would be seriously interested in it for the following reasons:

1. price
2. great storage place for all their media (MP3s)
3. no viruses
4. no spyware

Outside of a few video enthusiasts, this is the first time I've heard any high school male show interest in a Mac (they're all gamers, let's face it).

I really hope this thing exists, I'm now convinced it will be very successful. I think they've announced the new Xserve early to make room for the big announcement, which will be this miniMac thing. Call me a sucker.


----------



## Arden (Jan 6, 2005)

Okay... you're a sucker.


----------



## bookem (Jan 7, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Apple's got plenty of publicity -- I don't think that anyone who didn't know about Apple before now knows about Apple because of these rumors.  Plus the iPod is almost a household name now... my mother had heard about iPods and knew about Apple, and didn't even know what the hell an iPod did.




Whatever Apple's real reasons are, they are definately getting more publicity form these law suits.  I read BBC news several times a day, and can't remember seeing any rumors on their site although there have been several Apple/Steve Jobs related articles.

I know several PC type folk who also read BBC news who are now aware of the products Apple may release.  Normally they would hear about it from me, but this time they are asking me what's going on in the Apple world just because of these stories.  

Apple is almost a household name because of the iPod and iMac and certainly spends the money required on advertizing, however by starting these suits, there's no doubt that more people are aware that there are some new products about to appear that may interest be of interest to them.


----------



## markhawkins (Jan 7, 2005)

Media server, firewall, kids homework machine. The list goes on...


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 7, 2005)

Having watched Bill Gates' presentation at CES, I am thinking more and more that Apple should get into this market.  The stuff that Microsoft is doing is actually pretty great, except that it likes to crash.  

Their media center software looks amazing.

They are also getting into IPTV where you get your TV over ADSL 2.  The set top box is based on MS technology as well.  It looks, dare I say it, quite good.

I think this is going to explode.  The integration with their media center and windows xp is great.  Access all your photos from any XP machine from your tv, and same for music and movies.  

This is something Apple should really be doing because if they don't it's going to be all MS based and only work with Windows.


----------



## Viro (Jan 7, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> This is something Apple should really be doing because if they don't it's going to be all MS based and only work with Windows.



I can stand my PC crashing because let's face it, if we grew up with Windows, we're used to it.

What I can't stand is the thought of my VCR, DVD player, HiFi system, or even TV crashing just because Windows is on it. If this happens frequently (it crashed on Gates while he was demo'ing it on Conan O'Brien), this is going to take off like a rock.

If Apple is going to try take this market, they'd better have a good reliable system.


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 7, 2005)

That's true.  But FWIW, the Windows PVR didn't crash, but the XBox did.  Bill couldn't get the slideshow to work through the tv but that was probably that he had the wrong remote or it was dead, as it worked from another remote.

I hear about how people's non-MS based DVRs are still quite buggy so, if Apple did enter this market I think they could bring a lot of stability. 

The things that the windows media center could do was great, but I wouldn't like to see everything based on MS stuff.


----------



## Pengu (Jan 7, 2005)

check this out. found it on macrumors.com page2...
http://dms.tecknohost.com/macrumors/i/ihome


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 7, 2005)

Holy crap!  I'm willing to bet that the rumored "headless iMac" and this iHome device are one in the same!

Sweet find!


----------



## ScottW (Jan 7, 2005)

Finally... they are releasing the iBox. It has taken how long?! And to think, people didn't believe us.


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 7, 2005)

If this is fake, it's gotta be one of the best ever.  That makes me very excited!

Imagine the lawsuits once Apple sees these pics.


----------



## whitesaint (Jan 8, 2005)

WOW that looks very cool...I hope this is real...i bet those things will sell like hotcakes...and i want one...looks like some kind of compact small mac/media center pc thingermahbob...

Excellent find...It would be very good for Apple to take some of the media center market away from microsoft


----------



## Arden (Jan 9, 2005)

Trust me, it's fake.  It's a cardboard box with paper taped to it.  It's fairly obvious once you realize it. 

I think these people are on the right track, though.  If the Apple machine actually exists, and is at all similar to this, it should sell like hotcakes.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 9, 2005)

a media center should have a tv-in card, right?


----------



## symphonix (Jan 9, 2005)

I'd assume a media centre would have a power input, video in and out, some cables, and most importantly a remote control! Nah, this is a fake. Its a very well done fake, but a fake nonetheless.

Did anyone else notice that this looks like the same elevator setting used for the fake iMac G5 pictures 6 months ago? What about the strange colouration effect on the slot in the last photograph? Or the fact that the styrofoam does not seem to be the right shape?

I think it is two 12" iBook shells and a careful application of Gaffa tape. 

Good work though, whoever the faker is. It wouldn't surprise me if a few rebels within Apple are thinking different by releasing these misleading images ... I wonder what Apple's engineers _really_ think of the rumor sites.


----------



## fryke (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, let's get back to the rumour then. Whether that box is a fake or not does not deny that there's the rumour of a 'cheap' (499 or 599 USD) headless Mac around. And I personally think it won't be a 'media centre' device but rather a 'normal' low-end Mac. Nothing fancy with video. Sure, you can still hook it up to your TV or video beamer - but then again you can also do that with a PowerMac or an iBook. The difference may be that this device _fits_ your home system better, because it _is_ a slim desktop after all.

I think it's simply the device that'll bring over many more switchers and - even more importantly - those who think they'll keep their PC and add such a cheap Mac to the arsenal - only to find themselves buying a 'real' Mac when the time comes around to upgrade either the PC or the Mac and get rid of one system totally...

But also think about business... Put twenty of those with MS Office plus an Xserve into a building, and suddenly you can think less about viri, system updates etc. Plus: They're cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeap!


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 9, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> Did anyone else notice that this looks like the same elevator setting used for the fake iMac G5 pictures 6 months ago?


Yes!


----------



## Arden (Jan 9, 2005)

I personally like John Gruber's analysis.


----------



## symphonix (Jan 9, 2005)

You're right Arden, that is fascinating reading. I especially like the point about pricing. I can quite readily believe that the existence of a low-end headless Mac might be real, but that the price point is completely made-up. (A source of mine estimated that if such a system existed, it would have to retail for at least $599 to $799, simply based on the cost of the components listed and the pricing on competing products by Apple and competitors, such as IBM's ThinkCentre S)

So how many of the forum-goers and rumour watchers will be crying foul when Apple launches a great new product at a price thats higher than ThinkSecret predicted?


----------



## gerbick (Jan 9, 2005)

A lot of the people will honestly not care if it's higher than 499.  Most - and I dare say this without a sneer - Mac Users seem to be almost against a lower priced Mac.  It might dilute their user base, or something from the way that prior low-priced Mac sans monitor rumors has been past shot down because it's not a "wanted thing"... 

But as far as I go... bring it on.  Under 750.00 preferably.  

The rest... glad you can afford 3k for your computer.  I did that twice already... I got three people in my life that need cheap machines because I'll be the one probably buying them, and it's easier to use and maintain than Windows OS machines.

And a virii-less Mac that's cheap will not hit my pockets like the continuous flights and/or phone calls to them.


----------



## Arden (Jan 10, 2005)

Unfortunately, when it comes to MacMacs, there's no way to win.  There are people who will bitch and moan that Apple doesn't have any sub-$1000 machines (with a few, somewhat out-of-date exceptions); however, if Apple releases the rumored cheap computer and it starts selling like the iPod did (which it could, with aggressive marketing), they will complain that they are no longer members of an elite group.

If you know somebody like this, please do all of us a favor and take them to MacMacs Anonymous.


----------



## gerbick (Jan 10, 2005)

Arden said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, when it comes to MacMacs, there's no way to win.  There are people who will bitch and moan that Apple doesn't have any sub-$1000 machines (with a few, somewhat out-of-date exceptions); however, if Apple releases the rumored cheap computer and it starts selling like the iPod did (which it could, with aggressive marketing), they will complain that they are no longer members of an elite group.
> 
> If you know somebody like this, please do all of us a favor and take them to MacMacs Anonymous.


HAHA!  That's the funniest, *and truest*, things I've read about some Mac users and their fanaticism.


----------



## drunkmac (Jan 10, 2005)

I knew that iHome was fake from the start but when Arden mentions the whole "piece of paper" thing...you totally can see the paper/stickers haha.

Suckazzzz.


----------



## imagineer2000 (Jan 10, 2005)

It seems like the rumor mill is running overtime this year - I hope to see really cool stuff in a few hours (I work about 4 blocks from Moscone Center) - how much remains to be seen... but with all the rumors (I counted 16 in the forums here and I probably missed some.) This is either going to be an exciting Macworld, or a <yawn> bummer.

My only hope is that the $499 headless iMac is not too much like a Mac - if it is, it will cut into existing Mac sales (and the fat margins that go with them) I want Apple to gain market share too, but we all saw in the late '90s how dangerous such a gambit can be.  Above all else I want a healthy Apple to be there to torment M$FT for the next several decades...


----------

