ThinkSecret discusses the possibility of a cheap, headless Mac, similar in scope and target to the one we wishfully thought all the past year.
Think Secret Predicts Sub-$500 Headless Mac
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Apple could do something like this but i don’t know if they can do it yet. They still get a lot of their revenues from powermacs.
A potential scenario in the short term is doing it with via a channel which does not address mainstream customers, like say IBM’s corporate unit, or cripling it sufficiently that it will be of no interest to the powermac users.
I’d definetly buy one, with a bit more ram offcourse. Hopefully there will be a BTO superdrive, but I guess there will be. And with the us dollar as weak as it is, it is going to be really cheap
I don’t see how anyone who was considering a PowerMac would suddenly go for one of these; they’re in totally different markets. However, someone who was considering an i/emac may well go with one of these instead…
“This product is not going to be about performance,” said a source close to Apple. “This is going to be the basics, but with just as much of a focus on software as any Mac could ever be.”
I think it will have the lowest possible specs, think eMac or even sub eMac. And I think it won’t give Dell nightmares in the price/performance scales either.
If it’s got at least a 1.2Ghz G4, count me in. This could be the Mac that gets me to switch. The funny part is that I’ll be spending as much on software as I will on the computer, possibly more. But it will get me in the door, and I’ll be able to migrate over and leave Windows. My laptop is already running Fedora, so I can bye to Bill.
You can’t have a good computing experience at 500$ US prices. Apple wants to move the userbase to 64-bit computing and not keep them in the 32-bit arena.
—> Keep dreaming <—
You can’t have a good computing experience at 500$ US prices. Apple wants to move the userbase to 64-bit computing and not keep them in the 32-bit arena.
If the rumor was posted on any other site than thinksecret, I might agree with you.. But they do have a damn good record in the past, and Apple has been known to deliver some surprises from time to time. (think introduction of ipod)
It’s quite clever what they are trying to do here, they are aiming this mac at the ipod users who use their ipods on windows machines and would consider a mac if they were cheaper…. well now they will then Apple has them where they want them, there’s no compatition once you have a user in the Mac world.. what will they upgrade to?? an Imac or Powermac of course. Unless they are soo bad and put everyone back to x86 machines of course.
If this rumor does indeed become truth I think that it would signal the death of the eMac. Personally I have been thinking of getting something to replace my daughter’s original iMac, and have been thinking of getting an eMac. But now I’ll hold off to see if this headless Mac will actually happen.
I think it would a good way to pull in new users. I disagree that a cheap low Mac wouldn’t take away from Apple higher end models. Lot of people buy computers think they will last a few years, so those are the type of people who will spend the extra money for the higher end model weather it be an iMac G5 or PowerMac G5.
People always say how 1.25 G4 is slow and under powered, but I remember 2 -3 years where 500mhz G4 was top of the line. My point is I know a lot of printing and creative companies using old machine for professional graphic work. I don’t these machines would be good for every task such as video or games, but these machine with enough ram would be better than what other low end dells offer.
The Adobe software from 2 – 3 years hasn’t changed that much to require higher-end macs.
My view point is really based on my personal experience as a home user and in the graphics and the printing industry.
I just bought an iPod. I used to use a G5 for video editing at my old job, and I loved it. I really have been nothing but pleased with OS X. I simply can’t spend $2,000 on a computer, plus another $500-$1,000 on a monitor. If Apple releases this computer (at $499), and it has anything as good as at least marginal performance, I will buy it.
@ Anonymous (IP: —.kuleuven.ac.be)
Sorry, I still don’t beleive it. As much as I want it to happen, the idea makes no sense for the Apple Inc perspective.
Apple entering the 500$ level market would hurt it’s iMac and eMac lines massively.
As a windows/Linux user, I’ve been on the fence about getting a mac for quite some time, this idea of a “headless” mac sounds right up my ally, Drop a bit of ram in there and I could totally see myself buying one.
Hell, if this comes to fruition, I’ll be first in line.
If this is true, I will so be taking some of my savings and getting my grandparents their first computer, this cheap mac
That is what this is for. They are going to go back for the education market.
> And with the us dollar as weak as it is, it is going to be really cheap
Don’t fool yourself. In Europe, the prices are higher than in the US (especially, if you convert the dollar price to euros). This machine will be no different.
Apple entering the 500$ level market would hurt it’s iMac and eMac lines massively.
I’m betting that the eMac line is just going to be phased out. I mean, there is already an education version of the iMac. That is/was eMacs ballpark. The eMac hasn’t been updated for ages. I also doubt that it would hurt the imac line, for the same reasons the emac currently is barely hurting the imac line. It is basically replacing the eMac as a very cheap, low powered system.
well, I have a Powermac G4 that I upgraded to 1 GHz (from 400 MHz) and added memory to bring it up to 512 MBs…. I then added a DVD burner. I can do everything on this machine from using garage band with lots of instruments (30+) to office work and web browsing. I can play MP3s while doing anything and everything else on the system with out a bogging down that you see in windows.
I think that these systems will be fine if the buyer purchases extra RAM or gets them from a 3rd party dealer who usually gives extra RAM for free.
Apple has had problems differentiating lines in the past. The iMacs were too close to the PowerMacs, etc. and when they tried to make the iMacs lower, they were too low. Now, Apple has a good differentiation between the iMacs and the PowerMacs and putting out a 1.25GHz G4 box with no monitor would be quite different from a 1.6GHz G5 iMac with 17″ flat-screen. What’s more, 1.25GHz is definitely enough to run a Mac comfortably.
This is the first time that Apple has been able to create a line that is cheaper and different enough while still being a worthwhile purchase. In the past, people have suggested such units, but they wanted them with the same specs of an iMac for less cost than iMac – display (many times less). That’s just unrealistic, but people wouldn’t have bought a machine with lower specs before. Now, Apple has a comfortable gap to put a machine in that can perform fine, does cost them less, and does go for a different audiance from the iMac.
I don’t see why you have to ditch Windows in such way, as Windows is not that lousy in terms of performance. Playing mp3 and multi-task will bog down Windows? You gotta be joking me.
It is likely that Apple is willing to strip down its hardware to bare minimum for new Mac users, but the price. I just don’t believe it is going to be in $500 range. For many years, iPod has always stayed at around $300~$600-ish, and they always say they want to cut down the price, but never did significantly as opposed to its competitors. Now you tell me they are willing to sacrifice their earning in iMac/PowerMac/eMac, I don’t think so.
While I am running Linux, my girlfriend always wanted a Mac, but could never afford it. With such a new machine it would be perfect: Affordable, enough power to run the programs she needs, and best of all: Headless. The PowerMacs we used to look at were way too expensive and when we looked at used to be too overpriced for their performance. If this machine will make it to the stores, i will be buying one.
This is good news if it turns out to be true. Many people would like to buy a Mac, but the current one are too expensive. If true this means that Apple is finally listening to the consumer.
Also note who the changes comming to Apple are due to the iPod sucess. With iPod and not OsX is Apple’s chance to become mainstream.
Apple should concentrate on the iPod and let the Mac desktop take a back seat, at least they should wait and see how the new “affordable” desktops do.
Why catter to a few snobs, when there is a real wide market out there? Way to go Apple!!!
If Apple continues to realize that the iPod is the way to go, there will be nothing stopping them. Go Apple go!!!
I don’t think this ‘device’ has to be an headless iMac/eMac in the Mac family but something new: like a network computer for entreprise, a media player/recorder for consumer.. etc
Something that can complement a pc/mac near the tv/hifi stuffs, and also be a great iPod compagnon for people you don’t see a computer as something more than a web/mail/media box.
Just my thought..
As a G4 1.33 Ghz user, I can say that it’s really suffisent for many usages (even video/photo editing). Also, Tiger eliminate the rest of performance issues we know, and runs perfectly on a G4. Add all the new technologies it will offer (coreImage, coreVideo, Quartz Composer, new iLife…), seriously, there are some great perspectives in the horizon.
“for people you don’t see..”
for people WHO don’t see.., of course
64bitness is not a problem to the PowerPC plataform, 32 or 64bits the code running is essentially the same.
See, the PowerPC was engeneered from the begining with 64bits on mind. There are NO compatibility problems, the leap from Classic to OSX was a far more problematic change.
—
You can’t have a good computing experience at 500$ US prices. Apple wants to move the userbase to 64-bit computing and not keep them in the 32-bit arena.
—> Keep dreaming <—
Imagine if this mini-Mac were a sort of docking station for an gen-5 iPod with a slightly more robust and faster harddrive… Data, applications, and system reside on the ‘pod, and the user can go from chassis to chassis using the pod as a sort of USB-key on steroids. That would be cool.
A headless Mac is a dead Mac! You can’t live without a head, and neither can a Mac. 🙂
But, seriously, why is everyone so accursedly set on this “Apple must become the next Fumacaca PC maker” price-wise? You remember all the problems the eMac had with video? Remember all the whines and complaints users had with “Raster Shift” and all that crap? You think that came from Apple making a super high-end, expensive computer? No, it came from PRICE CUTTING! And the only way Apple knows how to CUT PRICES is to CUT CORNERS!
Sure, you whine and bitch and complain about how (!!!) “expensive” Macs are compared to PC’s, but didja ever think WHY? Ask yourself these two simple questions:
1) Who makes PC’s?
2) Who makes Macintoshes?
Now let’s see… EVERYONE (including their next of kin, most probably) are making PC’s. However only ONE company makes Macs.
Supply and demand? Or maybe it’s a matter of QUALITY CONTROL?!?
When you make or buy a custom PC (the pre-built crap systems at Wal*Mart and elsewhere don’t count), when something goes wrong, who do you contact to fix it? Well, first of all, you have to figure out what PART went bad and then contact the manufacturer (of that PART) to resolve the issue!
When a Mac “goes South for the winter and doesn’t come back”, who do you contact to fix it? APPLE! One supply route… and one route to a solution. You know EXACTLY who made/built everything and who is in charge of Quality Control. If a Mac is bad, it’s because Apple screwed up, not because your video card didn’t work with the motherboard, or your OS is incompatible with your CPU or your sound card doesn’t like your motherboard chipset driver or whatever.
Everything in a Mac JUST WORKS! And if it doesn’t, you know WHO to bitch and whine to!
In the days of the “Mac clones”, you lost some of that focus and Quality Control. And, even today, if Mac clones still existed, I’d STILL only buy from Apple. They DESIGN the Mac and they KNOW the Mac!
So, before you get on your “Apple has to compete with PC makers” price-wise, think about the royal pain users suffer when Apple tries to do that.
I am not a follower of the “throw-away Mac” philosophy. Any Mac that costs about the same as an iPod is no Mac I want to have anything to do with, because I know that too many corners were cut to make it that cheap.
Besides, it’s Apple’s choice if they want to remain small and (nearly) insignificant in the Market Share arena by keeping their profit margins nice and wide.
But I’ll gladly take my “expensive” Mac and browse the Internet without worrying about viruses and spyware and pop-ups and hack attempts, over the $500 PC that runs Windows XP and I have to buy Norton Anti[everything] (and run it every day) because I went online with it for 5 minutes and now probably have more viruses than the CDC and more Spyware than the KGB and more security holes than a bank made out of Swiss Cheese!
So, knowing all this, are you SURE you still want that lovely “under $500 headless Mac” you’re begging for? Because, as headless as IT is, is probably as headless as YOU are! 🙂
“Apple’s new headless Macintosh! With an utterly *decapitated* price of only $500!!!”
Yeah, right. No one will be able to “Machete” that price! It would be *BLOODY* impossible!!! 😀
Luposian
I expect major user base growth
Why would an entry-level customer buy a Mac for 500 dollars with no monitor and about a 1.2 ghz processor and 256mb of ram?
There is little reason, when you can buy a dell for the same price with a 2.4 ghz processor, a monitor, 256 mb of ram, a 40 gig hard drive, a cd burner, with Windows Xp Home — so you do not have to worry about compatibility.
Entry-level computer buyers are not stupid.
And you get a free printer with the dell
I think they should have taken a low-end G5 CPU with at least 512Mb of RAM and 60-80Gig hard drive. That would have been a realy nice headless iMac.
Would it have cost more? YES, but it would have been so much better and ready for the future (64bits).
Now, this is still a good news. But like all entry-level Mac, low-end spec with low-end video card is not going to make a speedy Mac. OS X will have a hard time and i’m not sure that it will help people to switch…. You have to own a very slow PC to enjoy this new Mac….
Adam: your problem is that you compare some numbers and not the overall usefulness of the product.
80% of the people I know do some typical tasks with their computers:
Internet
-eMail
-Instant Messaging
Music
-Playing
-organizing
-sync with mobile players
Photo
-sync with digicams
-organize photo collection
If apple offers a product which can do these tasks (and i think a 1,2 Ghz Mac with OS X will do that _much_ better than a dell pc for that prize), nobody will go like “but dell gives me more ghz”, because the target group has no bloody idea what these numbers mean, anyway.
And then there is this cute little white box, looking way better than every x86 pc.
> Apple entering the 500$ level market would hurt it’s
> iMac and eMac lines massively.
This is the kind of thinking that causes companies to stagnate and die.
Adam, I know from my own experience that Apple’s marketing plans are often a mystery but, even if OSNews is the only computer website you’ve read all year, you know that people of all platform persuasions have been screaming for this product for a long time.
Some want OS X and the iLife suite without having to go all the way with a full-blown iMac or even eMac.
Some want to use Darwin, X11, Fink, etc.
Some simply want to have a Mac for general purposes and, well, just to experience one for the first time.
And, who know, perhaps it is the future educational model. The eMac started out that way and then became a consumer model too.
I too wouldn’t believe this story except for the fact it came from ThinkSecret. The thing is, all you would need is an existing VGA monitor or go buy a really inexpensive one at WalMart or somewhere.
So, it isn’t a matter of being able to get a Dell for less, it is a matter of people being able to get a Mac (for once) at a very afforadable price.
Comparing a Dell to Mac is like comparing a Subaru Impreza to an Aston Martin DB9. Sure, they both take you from A to B very fast, but the DB9 does it in style
.
Tim entry-level PC users do not know the possibly superior design of macs or the ease of use.
They do know Macs are incompatible with Windows software and investing in a Mac for their first PC may be risky.
I think even laymen and new computer users understand that bigger numbers probably mean better performance, whether this is true is another issue. And it probably is true in this case.
One question is will this el cheapo Mac come with a hardware-based open gl accelerator for quartz, if not how do they expect to have to have even “okay” performance?
This “headless mac” will most likely have a Mobility 9000 or higher from ATI.
The 1.25ghz G4 is plenty fast for home use. I’ve been using a 1ghz powerbook (TI) for the last 2 years, and it is definitely sufficient for home use. In fact, I’d planned to upgrade this December, but it’s turned out that I really don’t have any motivation as the 1ghz G4 is plenty sufficient for what I do. It’s not exactly a dual 2.5ghz G5, but that’s a different price point.
– Kelson
“In fact, I’d planned to upgrade this December, but it’s turned out that I really don’t have any motivation as the 1ghz G4 is plenty sufficient for what I do.”
Excellent choice to wait. Consider that the G4 is a 32bit CPU fully utilized by OsX. Why buy a G5 which is overpriced and underutilized, until OsX is truly 64bit.
When OsX is finally truly 64bit then a G5 would be easier to justify, as pricey as they are.
But I agree with you that G4 are excellent machines for what’s currently available in terms of SW.
Sure a 1.25 ghz processor is sufficient for browsing the internet and instant messeging. Though why get a 1.25 when you can get a 2.4 ghz, for the same price.
Don’t forget. A 1.2 Ghz RISC chip is as powerful or more so than a 2.4 Ghz CISC chip.
Entry-level computer buyers are not stupid.
By the law of averages some will be
Still more are bamboozled daily into buying a mug’s eyeful, or make errors like thinking a machine is better because it has more diskspace, not realising (for example) the hideous onboard soundcard only accomodates the most basic of audio programs.
As to why they might choose Apple, my guess is that there are many who want a basic mac, but don’t like the price or perhaps the look of the new imac. There are many models of perfectly good monitors out there that are way cheaper than Apple’s beautiful-but-bankrupting screens. There’s also OSX of course, and the fact that it will be highly portable. Not as handy as a laptop perhaps, but I can see these being popular with musicians or for dj’ing for example.
The other point is that many, many people will be buying these who are not entry level users, but have seen OSX, like it and want it. They already have a monitor they’re happy with but want to have something better than the adware-riddled Dell they bought three years ago, and want an affordable mac to attach to it.
I predict these will be one of the most popular machines they make. I’d certainly consider getting one, especially if they make a G5 version.
Why are you doing this to yourselfe?
A $499 Mini/Nano-ITX formfactor Mac with a G4 (wich is a speed demon in comparison to VIA’s CPUs) has enough merits of its own to not have to go into RDF based talk with no footing in reality.
Yes, the idea is great. I always wished that there was something like that. But not just low end, give us a choice, as it has been the case for ages in the i386 market.
If it’s nice and small and can be extented to a second NIC, I’ll propably buy one, install OpenBSD and use it as a router/server for my Homenetwork.
I was thinking about a VIA Mini-ITX Solution, but if I can have a ppc for the same price, that’s the way to go.
Looks interesting, especially when they price it accordingly the current exchange rate $500 = €374.
I’m all about this if it’s true. This what I’ve always wanted as a developer. I would love to have a different platform to test software on [mainly Perl/CPAN stuff], but buying anything they have now is just too expensive.
>=$500 on the other hand, that’s doable.
A TiVO-like Media Center for $499 makes a lot more sense.
@adam: As an PC support company owner i haven seen loads of those Dells and i can say they run like crap default. And after a week they are full of spyware and the such. And dont even get me started about the free printers…they used to give away lexmark crap. i’d rather pay an extra 50/100 euro’s for a nice HP all in one.
Personaly i own a iBook 600Mhz with 512MB Ram and it works aor more smoothly then most dell computers i meet in my line of work.
My girlfriend missuses the mac in every way and she only has a problem/question like once a month and i am not cleaning up the system in anyway. I dont want to think about how much time i would loose if i would give her a dell…
Only thing is some webpages dont work good with safari, nor ie5.2 thats included. Though firefox helps a lot and also MSN works fine, though no webcam support…
if Apple wants to compete more in the home market and Edu, they my have to come out with a $500.00 dollar machine. With integrated stuff like on the pc side.
if this product comes out, im all over it. exactly what many people have wanted for a long time. makes switching easier, cheaper and more appealing.
Yup. I was thinking mini-ITX too before this. But, with mini-ITX you’re still stuck with x86. With an Apple headless you get PPC.
A little low-power headless PPC box is just the sort of minimalistic thing I’ve been waiting for. I hope they make it. Will prolly buy one if they do (and convince friends and family to get ’em too).
Of course you can do a lot with OSS on windows (slap cygwin on…..), but then it’s the same as with linux – tinke a lot to get it right.
I for one enjoy tinkering, but at the same time i love my iBook, because it literaly just works. There is more or less no initial setup required, installing apps is a breeze, (nearly) no crashes and some nice unix underpinning …
If you just look at the eyecandy interface and make your judgment, then you are wrong. Use the thing for one week and i bet you are sold…
to sell more gizmos like the ipod. i would love to buy a mac, but i just cant afford it. well, actually i can afford it, i just cant justify spending that much for another computer. but if this is true, i will own a mac next summer. what i think the whole point of this is to get people to move over to the platform, and then sell them super expensive mp3 players, webcams, and lcds. lets face it, the ipod is what drove their stocks growth last year. even if they make very little money selling this new mac, they can make tons of money selling addons and they get the added benefit of getting osx to more people. i actually think its a good idea.
Ronald (IP: —.sympatico.ca)
You’re right…and you’re wrong. If Apple will not see an increase in number of units sold, they’ll hurt their bottom line massively because a barebones mac simply doesn’t have the same margin as the higher-end machines.
But Apple is aiming for the millions of people who bought the iPod (the “overpriced” MP3 player), not just the installed base.
I just bought my first MAC, iBook 12″ with 512mb ram and 80GB HDD and 1.2GHZ g4. Let me tell you that it is plenty fast. Even with only 32mb of VRAM on the 9200 it plays homeworld 2 and warcraft3 just fine so far, everything just works Wireless bluetooth. Plus I have all of myfavorite UNIX tools with fink. I am a long time Windows users and work for one of the big 3 PC companies as a consultant so the iBOOK won’t be used for work out at customer sites but it is truly a joy to use. Do you know what finally got me to switch, my wifes iPOD. I would have considered one of theese boxes and I will probably get one for my wife if they come out. Apple has excelent quality and as long as they don’t cut corners on this product then they will sell. The real question is if they can get the price down low enough and maintain this slim form factor. Assuming they base it off the g4 ibook 12″ starting at 999 retail they may be able to do it. Pull the display and battery and you are looking at say 150 bucks off retail. Go to a 3.5″ hdd and you are looking at another 50 bucks so we are already at 700 dollars retail. I haven’t cracked open my iBOOK but I am willing to bet there is some room for componets tobe swapped and apple may be willing to cut their profit margin to get an influx of OSX users.
I have been reading your comments and all I can say is that I get frustrated with you.
you clearly have no understanding of computers at all.
1) CPU performance is not and cannot be measured in GHz.
2) a Computer’s performance cannot be measured by the CPU’s performance
3) software on the Mac might be compiled to run on the Mac and PC software may not run on the Mac but most PC titles that everyone uses have a version for the mac and the file formats are what is important, not the software. MS Office for one… a .doc is a .doc is a .doc
4) how blind can you be if you think that a video card in a bottom line Mac can not have 32 MBs of VRAM on it? what year is this again?
I’ll get one as a second computer for experimenting and enjoying.
I’d agree with that if they introduced it in three to four years when people might actually buy a media center but for now this product would have to appeal as a second or primary and inexpensive PC. Otherwise you are talking about spending $500 for an ipod accessory and i just don’t see that doing too well
That cheap headless iMAC may well be a means to position apple as the entertainment hub but for now its gotta be more. Jobs was sharp enough to expect the demise of the internet appliance space back in the Be days.
…if Apple had chosen Dylan as it’s main development environment instead of Objective-C.
I assume that your comment is satire about the never ending “not-good-enough” comments.
Nope. not satire at all. I didn’t even read the comments.
If Apple hadn’t dumped all their Dylan funding and had continued on with development to this day, Dylan and it’s Apple IDE would be a generation ahead of most other development environments. The language proper still spanks Java/C#/C++, but it doesn’t have the plethora of libraries or commercial support anymore. Too bad. Developers don’t know what their missing. http://www.gwydiondylan.org
Apple wouldn’t risk messing up its hardware business before, but now it has two major sources of income(iPod). This allows apple to be more flexible and take more risks in the Mac hardware space. I’m still skeptical, but i believe it could happen.
If it does, i’ll buy my parents one immediately to replace their 333mhz imac. I already have a 18.1″ LCD in storage.
Could a sub $500 headless Mac be a possible Apple play for consumer media room $$$ in the spirit of iPod?
If you add cheepo chips to an eMac motherboard design you could easily get a box that could handle 5.1 surround input/output, HDMI/DVI input/output, digital audio in/out, Infra-red for remotes and maybe an LCD or electroluminecent status screen on the front. Add in HD capability and you’d have one SMOKIN’ media center box at the $500 price point.
Thoughts?
The price guessed at in the article may seem low to computer users, but I think it is too high for a living-room box.
A DVD player is about $50 and a stereo music system not much more. Are people prepared to spend $500 on another box? From outside, it is going to look the same as the DVD player.
OK, you can say it has a hard drive inside. That would add $70 to the price. Customers will not much care what is inside, because they are not going to open it up.
For rich customers only.
Don’t forget. A 1.2 Ghz RISC chip is as powerful or more so than a 2.4 Ghz CISC chip.
Dude you drank WAY too much koolaid if you believe a 1.25 G4 will surpass a 2.4 Ghz.
That being said I’d love to see a cheap headless mac from apple. i’d buy one.
P4 is RISC, all modern CPU’s are.
Sure, but it has to have the overhead of translating between CISC and its internal RISC op format, and I might further note the P4 was designed solely to achieve fast clock speeds. Clock speed alone is irrelevant as a performance measure if it’s not coupled with the actual IPC capabilities of the chip, and it’s in this department where the P4 fails miserably, hence a sub 2GHz Pentium M more than holding its own with 3+GHz P4s. For another example, try the Alpha. At 800MHz it was more than capable of blowing the pants off of the majority of other chip designs.
I personally don’t think this will initially be marketed as a set top box. All reports I have read indicate this is a low cost box aimed at PC users that are thinking of switching.
However if Apple where to target a similar box to the TV set top market, $499 may not be that far out of line. TiVo is advertising a DVD Recorder with TiVo for $399 after a $100 rebate. The question would be can Apple show a significant enough add on value to justify the premium price say $100 to $200 over the cost of high end TiVo type boxes.
Apple could work this very much like they did the iPod. Other vendors had hard disk based MP3 players before Apple introduced the iPod. But Apple designed a unit with better integration than anyone and justified a higher price based on those featured. I could see Apple trying the same thing with the set top box. Picture a device that replaces the DVD player/burner, the TiVo box, manages your music collection, provide satellite radio, and satellite TV, all managed from an Apple interface. It could be very big.
@ThunderRiver:
It is likely that Apple is willing to strip down its hardware to bare minimum for new Mac users, but the price. I just don’t believe it is going to be in $500 range. For many years, iPod has always stayed at around $300~$600-ish, and they always say they want to cut down the price, but never did significantly as opposed to its competitors. Now you tell me they are willing to sacrifice their earning in iMac/PowerMac/eMac, I don’t think so.
I remember all the models of iPods being cut by $100 about a year after their initial release, and then… Higher capacity units being sold at the same price as the older units were sold.
This may not be “significant” to you. But it was to the rest of us…
I have a G4 500mhz AGP PowerMac that is my main Mac. It has 512mb of RAM and a GeForce 2 AGP Card…
It feels JUST AS FAST as my 3.2ghz P4…
It is not slow, in ANY way.
With the latest release of MacOS X, 10.3.7.. It got a VERY nice speed bump.
a 1.25ghz G4 at a higher FSB (mine is 100mhz), will be a NICE BOX for people at home.
I was going to ditch this G4 and buy a low end G5 iMac. Now, I’m going to wait for for a week or two to see if this new Mac is real or not.
If it is, I’ll ditch this G4 while it still has value, and use my B&W G3 for awhile…
And then, buy this new G4 when it comes out.
I think if it DOES come out at $500.00 (remember, people predicted the Mini iPod at $100…), and even at $599 which I think is more likely…
It will be a bargain Mac, that will sell like hotcakes.
Apple will have a hard time keeping them on the shelves.
MANY companies will buy TONS of them to replace their old iMacs that have not been economical to replace with $1299 iMac G5’s.
And MANY companies have older G3 Macs with perfectly good Monitors that this unit would just drop in and replace.
The purpose of this Mac is to drive up Apple’s Marketshare, to get more software developers to develop for MacOS X, and to drive the sales of the higher-end units.
While you can buy a $189 PC from Walmart, it doesn’t harm the sales of the high end P4 PC’s…
I don’t think a Cheap Mac will kill sales of the higher end units…
But, we’ll see…
have you looked at the prices of Media center PCs? 500 dollars is super cheap.
I bet that since this is headless that Apple might see a chance to get into the media center market with a box that costs 1/3 the price of a Dell media center PC.
I like OS-X and I believe and consider it a great Linux OS. This machine with a little more ram will play my favorite game “World of Warcraft” I hope. However besides this I get a great OS to use for utility tasks such as web/email. I get my 64bit machine to use for games, 64bit linux development. My 32bit machine is free to do regular Linux testing and development.
So if it’s released I’ll probably buy 2, one for the wife who wants a iMac but does not want to spend the money and one for me.
If we’re talking a 1-1.25 GHz G4 and the ability to bring the RAM up to at least 512MB, preferably 768-1024, I’ll buy one hands down for 5000SEK which is probably what it will cost in Sweden with the extra taxes and margins for Apple.
MacOS X is not a Linux OS in any way.
It’s a Unix. Not the same thing…
Please let this thing be:
a) pretty
b) have HD output (720p/1080i)
If it does, I am SO there
“well, I have a Powermac G4 that I upgraded to 1 GHz (from 400 MHz) and added memory to bring it up to 512 MBs…. I then added a DVD burner. I can do everything on this machine from using garage band with lots of instruments (30+) to office work and web browsing. I can play MP3s while doing anything and everything else on the system with out a bogging down that you see in windows.”
Uhm, a 486dx2 66MHz 32MB might slow down of playing mp3s, but that’s not comparable to a 1GHz G4… a 1GHz P3 or more comparable 1.6GHz P4 wouldn’t slow down at all.
Amen! At least someone can see the big picture instead of moaning “Mac are expensive, if only it is cheaper”
dude.. you are not talking to a mac only person here. I have a P4 sitting right next to me. the thing bogs down… windows tear.. menus take 10 seconds to pop up.. MP3s skip…
mutlitasking in XP is awful. I can have much more going on in OS X than I can in XP and on a “slower” machine.
I know that it has to do with Memory management and the GUI (Windows leaves it up to the app for refreshing the contents where OS X does it for the applications) but pretending that Windows on a P4 is snappy under load is just silly.
I’m still using an iBook G3. For most of what I do with it, it performs fine. Now, if I were a graphic artist, or compiling massive programs, or a gamer, that might be a different story. But for what I’m doing with it, that is, email, browse the web, occasionally use AppleWorks,it’s plenty fast enough. I expect my needs, and those of about 70% of the market can be served by just about any generic computer off the shelves.
This isn’t 1992, where every little bit of incremental performance made a difference. In the Wintel world, I quit paying attention after processors exceded about 1.2 GB. At that point, any additional performance just wasn’t noticable for most cases. More important to me are peripherals and features. I don’t think that, for most people, the performance of this box would be a deal-breaker at all. It should do quite nicely.
I have a P4 sitting right next to me. the thing bogs down… windows tear.. menus take 10 seconds to pop up.. MP3s skip…
Uh dude you got serious system issues. I have a P3 that dosen’t do shit like that and My P4 surely dosen’t have those kinds of issues.
Sounds like IRQ conflicts or DMA issues – either way its not *normal*
Oh yeah back on topic – I want a $500-$1000 headless mac. eMacs aren’t bad but I can’t stand the AIO designs.
“P4 is RISC, all modern CPU’s are.”
P4 is a a CRISC, as Intel say.
IT ISN’T A TRUE RISC!!!
NOT all modern CPUs are RISC, sorry.
the kicker to a “headless” mac is that Apple has been making their components play in PC-land for some time now… all the current apple displays are now standard, things like Airport and iPod are equally at home on Windows. You could build an “almost” apple PC right now and run Linux on it if you wanted. A $500 mac would fit some people just right. From all the rumors it would be more of a headless/batteryless snow iBook than a mac. The distinction of Mac right now is OSX even more than the hardware. A non-expandable mac priced just over an iPod would look really good to many iPod owners. The only thing you’d really need to expand is ram…it seems under-ramed to me. S-Video or HDTV output would make it appeal to “low cost”/iPod crowd as well.
There’s not much you can’t do with external devices now anyway. There’s sound cards, video input, etc… If it was demanded, i’m sure they’d release a firewire “superdrive” so users could have the iDVD capabilities. What makes a Mac a Mac is the software. As long as this mini-mac can run everything a regular one can they’ll be OK… particularly if it can still run mac games. Mac is really suffering a lack of mindshare among software writers lately. They’ve got to do something to gain some user base. Fortunately, they just got one more version of MS office…they simply need to sell some macs to put it on…unlike Linux, Mac has legit MS Office…so you could get one of these w/o loosing anything.
Frankly, they should shoot for the old Apple II market. There’s been an incredible lack of attention to “just works” computers. If Apple could build a web community around simple web apps that would run on the Mini-macs they would do a lot of good. Of course the apps would run on Windows or Linux….[because Apple’s browser is KHTML based!] but all the cool kids would have the mini-mac. If they can make a mini-mac “cool” like iPod [but still have MS office for moms] then they’d have a winner on their hands.
So, knowing all this, are you SURE you still want that lovely “under $500 headless Mac” you’re begging for? Because, as headless as IT is, is probably as headless as YOU are! 🙂
Your argument is based on the supposed lesser quality of clone computers. However, headless Macs are not clones. And your comment about being headless doesn’t make much sense either.
And for your information, the only thing that’s keeping me back from getting a headless Mac now are freakish Mac zealots.
No, it came from PRICE CUTTING! And the only way Apple knows how to CUT PRICES is to CUT CORNERS!
And you think eMachines and Dell and all of these other manufacturers are making better quality boxes at $500? I got news for you buddy, they all are made from the same components that come from the same factories in China. If anything, I’d expect Apple to make a better quality el-cheapo box. Look at the G4 iBook compared to the avg. sub $1000 PC laptop. Its night and day.
And to those of you who think people who are spending $3000 on a new Powermac G5 Dual processor box now are suddenly going to ditch it and go for a sub $500 G4 pizza box are nuts. Beleive it or not, there are computing tasks that take G5 horsepower. People who do this line of work (Final Cut, Large Image Processing, Rendering) and need the power and expandability will continue to buy G5s. Likewise, if they were PC users, they would not be buying $400 PCs, they would still be spending $3000 on the equivilent PC to a G5 because they need it to do their work.
Entry-level computer buyers are not stupid.
Don’t mistake “entry level” with “don’t want to/can’t spend the money”. I know plenty of entry level buyers who have basic needs but are willing to pay extra for quality. Likewise, I know plenty of advanced users who know their needs well enough to know what you get for $500 and who will buy such a PC when it is an appropraite purchase for the job to save money.
And you get a free printer with the dell
Dude, you get a free printer with practically any PC you buy.
Sure a 1.25 ghz processor is sufficient for browsing the internet and instant messeging. Though why get a 1.25 when you can get a 2.4 ghz, for the same price.
Cause a $500 2.4Ghz PC isn’t any faster and you have to deal with all the crap spyware and virii that plague windows?
This thread generated a lot of comments. I would like to see an OS News poll on who would actually buy this product if released. I know that I was thinking about buying a AMD64 system to play with. I would much rather buy the mac and a cheap LCD screen. With the monitor, more ram and a DVD burner, you are still under one grand. And yes, this would be my first mac.
This could be a catch all for apple
A thin client/network box for school and biz, sans combo/super
a simple email/messaging/web/music/photo box sans virus
An ipod station connected to your iPod/TV/hifi/iTunes music store/(and with a little bit of third party TV tuner stuff a PVR)
A second (third/forth.. mini Xgrid cluster anyone?) Mac for the G5 super user…new arrival in the Mac-home airport
A cheap/easy path to a faster OSX mac for those scanning around for something a little better than the early G3/4 (hmmm! it will kill your old macs resale value! get ’em on ebay now!)
If it were sold everywhere the iPod is (as its companion?) we would see a computer revolution… surpassing the Bondi iMac days… or the very least the death of the atx shape box on the high street!
If I could get a basic Mac like this from them that I could replace the HD with a really fast drive and throw a bunch of RAM at it, I’d get one, just for the geek factor. Count me in.
As hard as it is to believe — since Apple has down-played this very market in analyst conference calls — I did believe it as soon as I read the report. This move fits right in with apple’s evolving market position, business plan, and product line.
Market position: in a few more quarters, the iPod user base will be as large as the Mac user base — and growing rapidly larger. I have to believe that Apple’s exec’s will attempt to leverage the iPod user base with a dirt-cheap but well made Mac that has an eMac-equivalent user experience (which is very good by the way). Since they will be moving the eMac to the G5 processor, I do not believe this will significantly eat into higher priced Mac sales. What it should do is grow Apple’s market share significantly due to the large amount of exposure to an insanely great product that will be within the “cheap enough to just try it” price range. This is what Apple needs to kick-start market share growth.
Business plan: Apple’s primary growth market is the consumer market. Think iPod, iTunes, iLife, low-end iMac, and whatever the next iDevice and iDigitalHub will be. A headless iMac — could it be the start of the next wave of iDigitalHub hardware and software?
Product Line: The current desktop line is going to G5 and 64 bit which will keep demand high and reduce the chance of a low-end iMac taking sales away from the current products. As laptops, the PowerBook and iBook are in a different market segment geared toward those who want mobility. A low-end iMac will capture the interest of iPod users, new-to-Apple customers, and switchers, and should increase the sales of higher priced Macs as the user base grows and begins to upgrade to more capable machines.
all I know is that something like this would make me consider a Mac (as a Windows user completely ignoring them now). I’d say there are lots in the same boat and that something like this would be a great move, provided the machine is half-decent and semi-configurable with off-the-shelf parts.
But again as a Windows user, I’d also be looking for a lot of freeware for the Mac, wondering if it’ll be worth it.
From a PC-builder perspective, I hate having to get stuff like power supplies from the same vendor. But would be a good (much-needed) move to get a machine out like this to the masses, IMO. How much can the market share slide before they get the hint? Do it, Apple.
An OSNews poll on this subject would be *very* interesting. I am wedded to Windows for work purposes…I play with Linux because I can install it on the same x86 hardware. With the Apple market share being small, as far as my computer consulting business goes (no sense in getting to know and use an Apple), and the cost, I never could justify getting one. If they sold these, I’d buy one in a New York minute. I think there are a lot of people out there like that. PLUS, it would be ideal for all the loved ones that constantly ask you to fix their Windows box!
If this is true I will happily add 5 or 6 to my office rack as a nice zero-conf Xgrid render farm. Hell it will be around the cost of one high-end workstation.
And hasn’t that market share nonsense been debunked enough?
I personally think this would be a great move and from reading the posts here I think this will draw in a lot of users, both experienced and first-timers.
If it were sold everywhere the iPod is (as its companion?) we would see a computer revolution… surpassing the Bondi iMac days… or the very least the death of the atx shape box on the high street!
Yup. Reminds me of the *old* VW bug. Small, inexpensive, reliable, & modestly stylish. I’m not old enough to have been around for it, but those things were *everywhere*. It was a *phe-nom-e-non*. Everybody had one.
If Apple does it right and puts out a nice simple reliable inexpensive box it will be the original VW bug all over again.
(Sidenote: it’s too bad VW did such a lousy job with the new VW bug of the 2000’s — they could’ve taken over the world with another bug, but instead went for the higher-priced, “look at me”, yuppie crowd.)
I hope Apple doesn’t blow it.
I keep hearing some say that why would people buy this headless xMac if they can get a dell or something with a 2.4GHZ chip in it. I am sorry, but you are missing the obvious…
1) This headless xMac isn’t necessarily meant to go after the cheap PC market. It’s main purpose is to attract new Windows users who own iPods and would like to own a Mac, but don’t want to spend a lot of money. You see, even if there are higher CPUs for PCs, it doesn’t matter. This computer is being built as a low-cost Mac to attract switchers. Why would someone care about a faster CPU for a PC if they want to buy a Mac and use Mac OS X? These customers Apple are targeting aren’t interested in what PC companies offer. They are more interested in what Apple offers and how much it costs.
2) I believe this headless xMac is possibly meant to replace the eMac. If not, this would probably confuse things in the product lineup. This makes perfect sense to attract new education customers who already have a ton of PCs with monitors. Instead of ditching all the monitors, they can hook these monitors up to these new headless xMacs. If the schools want to purchase a Mac with a monitor built in, then the education iMac G5 is what Apple wants them to buy.
I think in the end, Apple wants to make the transition from PC to Mac easy for switchers. Start them out with a low-cost/low-risk Mac that they can use their existing monitors with. Then when they are more invested into the platform, they might consider a iMac or PowerMac with more power.
Just my two cents.
Mike
Luposian, You need to chill. It will help more people who are POOR enojoy and learn just how good OSX is. What is your problem dood?
This headless xMac isn’t necessarily meant to go after the cheap PC market. It’s main purpose is to attract new Windows users who own iPods and would like to own a Mac, but don’t want to spend a lot of money. You see, even if there are higher CPUs for PCs,
I’m sure i will buy one just to learn the ins and out of OsX allso.Most people who buy an Apple i-pod allready have a PC.How would they otherwise get their music on the Pod?It’s a peripheral like a scanner or printer for their box.Ther’re a lot of enthusiasts for whom the current prize tags are to much but would consider the proposed headless system.
Ive been a windows user for awhile…been using linux a fair amount over the last year or two. And now have been intreged about osx, I have been eyeing up an ibook, but if something like this was to come out, I think I would be in line with the rest of you to pick one up.