The Devil's Advocate - iMac Designs Do's & Don'ts: Don't Mix Pyramids and Snakes
by
- September 2nd, 2004
What do you get when you combine Apple's Pyramid iMac and it's Snake iMac? Why you get this mess:
Images from Apple's design patent
The Pyramid Snake iMac--no, it's not a joke. On August 31, 2004, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) issued United States Patent Number D495,332 to Apple Computer, Inc. for a "Display device with a moveable assembly," which was filed on October 3, 2003. This is a division of an application first filed on November 8, 2001.
The other thing you should get from the above design is a big sigh of relief that Apple didn't go down the road of employing varying wacky shapes and neck styles to differentiate its iMacs. The new iMac is a big improvement over the previous design, at least as far as aesthetics go. Personally I wish the entry level machine cost $999, had a better graphics card (the graphics card Apple included stinks), and included a video input.
Then again, I also wish I would get paid for my good looks, but the reality is I'd starve.
Had Apple included a video input port, it could have addressed one of the biggest draw-backs to an all-in-one computer design. Namely, with an all-in-one computer you pay for and then have to dispense a perfectly good screen when the computer's CPU becomes dated. This is a particular shame with the 20" iMac; it's screen is stunning and should still be of use far after the iMac's 1.8GHz G5 processor becomes dated. If Apple simply included a DVI input on the iMac, then you could plug the iMac into a future PowerMac and use it as a display.
Anyway, I think one thing has become clear regarding the iMac. It's no longer "for the rest of us." The original iMac was designed to be the Volkswagen of the computer world. The computer that everyone could afford. It was very price point and feature-for-price competitive with the mid-range computer systems of its day. Today, a mid-range family computer goes for around $700-800. And you get a surprisingly capable machine at that price point--heck, dual layer DVD burners go for less than $100 these days, so it's really no surprise. The iMac no longer competes in the general mid-range price point. Today, its price point is up in the "upper-middle-class" bracket.
As such, the task of shoring up the low-to-mid-range has been passed on to the eMac, which quite honestly, is too long in the tooth to be compelling. With the iMac now filling in the upper-middle-class-range and the eMac failing to captivate enough buyers in the mid-range to improve Apple's market share, Apple really has to come up with a new machine.
Well, it does if it wants to gain some market share.
And for those of you that believe market share is irrelevant, let me put it to you plainly. You're wrong. It's important. In the computer field market share is key. There will be some critical market share value so low that software developers will stop writing and/or supporting Mac software. Currently, Apple holds about 2% of the global PC market and is doing quite well. Maybe that critical low-point is 1.5%. Maybe it's 1%. Maybe it's at 0.5%. Most definitely at 0%, you'll have a problem. The frightening thing is there isn't too much wiggle room between Apple's 2% market share of today and the clear death of a market at 0%.
Apple needs a mid-to-low-end machine to drive sales like the original iMac. This iMac ain't it. A new headless eMac at $499 could fit the bill--an (e)conomy Mac. The question is will Apple continue to ignore the great big pink elephant (of dwindling market share) in the room or do something about it and provide a more economical and compelling entry-level machine? Let's hope Apple thinks of something better than the Pyramid Snake iMac.
is an attorney. Please don't hold that against him. This work does not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of The Mac Observer, any third parties, or even John for that matter. No assertions of fact are being made, but rather the reader is simply asked to consider the possibilities.
"Personally I wish the entry level machine ... had a better graphics card (the graphics card Apple included stinks)..."
I'm sure glad there was need to clarify that a better graphics card was needed because the included one stinks (as opposed to needed a better graphics card because it tasted bad, or was a funny color, or said bad things about the author's mother).
Are we sure that marketshare is the important statistic? Or perhaps installed base is more important? It seems typical if you are a deathnell cryer intent on belittling the mac you are going to harp marketshare (even though absolute numbers of sales seem to be rising each year) and say the Mac is failing.
Apple is healthy, and the software written for it is head and shoulders above that written for windows.
The "marketshare" they seem so concerned about is the 300-500 range, and quite frankly that is nothing more than email, photos, music playback, letter writing, and other "basic" tasks. The included Mac software is perfect for 90% of most of that crowd of people. The argument about there being no software just doesn't wash any more. About the only thing not readily available is propriatary, specilized software that only corporate environments might have some use for. I suppose you could include the latest and greatest 3D FPS is you just have to have games, but really, how many games do you have to have!?
In the end the only point is price. You want quality, elegance and enjoyment…buy a Mac. You want cheap. Check Wal-Mart.
spxyu02 wrote: "Personally I wish the entry level machine ... had a better graphics card (the graphics card Apple included stinks)..."
I'm sure glad there was need to clarify that a better graphics card was needed because the included one stinks (as opposed to needed a better graphics card because it tasted bad, or was a funny color, or said bad things about the author's mother).
The 5200 is a low end card. It doesn't just stink, it completely sucks. If apple used a 5600/5700/5800, you could still get plenty of better cards, but the performance wouldn't totally be in the toilet like it is with the 5200. There are many degrees of sucking and the 5200 manages to scrape the bottom of the barrel of suckage for today's cards. So if they used a 5800, you could still have put in a better card (oh like the 5900, the 6800, the radeon 9700, 9800 etc.) but at least the card wouldn't totally blow chunks like the 5200.
Apple could have put in a decent or good card, and we all could have still wished they put in a still better card. But we don't even have that luxury because the chose a completely skanky card.
Guest wrote: The "marketshare" they seem so concerned about is the 300-500 range, and quite frankly that is nothing more than email, photos, music playback, letter writing, and other "basic" tasks.
Apple will never be able to compete with the $300-$500 budget PC-makers. It has said so. I don't understand why people continue to gripe about this. Dell can't even compete in this range. Why the hell would BMW want to compete with Kia?
Quote
Guest wrote: Apple could have put in a decent or good card, and we all could have still wished they put in a still better card. But we don't even have that luxury because the chose a completely skanky card.
Hey - guess what? The iMac is not a game-playing machine. It's a machine that'll play games, but it's not built for that. Apple has said specifically to buy a G5 Tower if you want to play games.
Just as Apple can't compete with $300 Chinese PCs, they can't compete for "Hardcore Gamers," either. They're not even trying. Get over it. If gaming is the most important thing to you, but an Alienware - or an X-Box.
Man, I swear you people just need something to complain about.
Hey - guess what? The iMac is not a game-playing machine. It's a machine that'll play games, but it's not built for that. Apple has said specifically to buy a G5 Tower if you want to play games.
Just as Apple can't compete with $300 Chinese PCs, they can't compete for "Hardcore Gamers," either. They're not even trying. Get over it. If gaming is the most important thing to you, but an Alienware - or an X-Box.
Man, I swear you people just need something to complain about.
Hey guess what, it sucks even for a non-game playing card. It doesn't even have 128MB of memory. And buying a G5 to play games is the height of idiocy. You can get a game rig that will kill a dual G5 in game performance for about 1/3 the price. The point is apple had a chance to enhance its position from "totally sucky game platform" to "mildly sucky game platform" by using a better card. But the blew it with this version of the iMac.
I hope they correct this in the next (hopefully fast) revision.
Anonymous wrote: Hey guess what, it sucks even for a non-game playing card.
Explain why.
Quote
And buying a G5 to play games is the height of idiocy. You can get a game rig that will kill a dual G5 in game performance for about 1/3 the price.
Then I suggest you do so if you want killer game performance.
Quote
The point is apple had a chance to enhance its position from "totally sucky game platform" to "mildly sucky game platform" by using a better card.
Is it the point? Really? I can't see why - it doesn't appear that Apple wants to make killer game machines. I don't want one, at any rate, and so am happy not to have to pay for all those unnecessary features.
My guess is that Apple is only trying to prevent other people from using that idea to create an iMac knock-off. Some big corporations get a patent on different iterations of their Name to stop people from coming up with something similar to their names as in the case of Mike-Rowe-Soft. MS had patented different spelling, different abreviatons,etc, of their name but they didn't expect that Mike Rowe guy to come up with Mike Rowe Soft. He pulled a fast one on them on that one.
Anonymous wrote: Hey guess what, it sucks even for a non-game playing card.
Explain why.
Because with Expose and quartz extreme use up the memory. Particularly on a 20" screen, I have tons of windows open and and expose crawls because all the windows cannot fit in the 64MB of memory. And it really doesn't take that many windows on a 20" screen to fill that 64MB of memory. Bascically it takes 10-15 windows to do it.
Quote
The point is apple had a chance to enhance its position from "totally sucky game platform" to "mildly sucky game platform" by using a better card.
Quote
Is it the point? Really? I can't see why - it doesn't appear that Apple wants to make killer game machines. I don't want one, at any rate, and so am happy not to have to pay for all those unnecessary features.
Forget about killer machines. I'm talking about a mediocre game machines. The 5200 doesn't even get you to mediocre. The iMac should be an all around decent machine. It's actually more than decent for digital video things. The processor is really nice. Not great, but good stuff. The screens are nice. Not great, bug good stuff. The form factor is fantastic. The look, is sweet. The graphics card is the pits.
Hey guess what, it sucks even for a non-game playing card. It doesn't even have 128MB of memory. And buying a G5 to play games is the height of idiocy. You can get a game rig that will kill a dual G5 in game performance for about 1/3 the price. The point is apple had a chance to enhance its position from "totally sucky game platform" to "mildly sucky game platform" by using a better card. But the blew it with this version of the iMac.
I hope they correct this in the next (hopefully fast) revision.[/quote]
If you can get a game rig that will kill a Dual G5 Tower, how exactly will a better video card help an iMac compete with that rig?
>>Because with Expose and quartz extreme use up the memory. Particularly on a 20" screen, I have tons of windows open and and expose crawls because all the windows cannot fit in the 64MB of memory. And it really doesn't take that many windows on a 20" screen to fill that 64MB of memory. Bascically it takes 10-15 windows to do it.<<
I can't think of the last time I had 10 windows open at one time. At that point even on a 20" monitor the clutter would be a real PITA. If you have that many windows open you are either trying to do too much at once, should be using a pro machine (G5 tower) or are the type that leaves every light on and forgets to close the door when they leave.
If you can get a game rig that will kill a Dual G5 Tower, how exactly will a better video card help an iMac compete with that rig?[/quote]
It doesn't have to compete with a top of the line rig. But it would be nice if it would compete with middle of the road machines! First, it should have a min of 128MB of vid ram, because quartz extreme and expose eat it up, especially on a 20" screen. Then it really should be at least a Radeon 9700/nvidia 5700/5800 level card (which are old news at this point) so it could play doom 3 marginally well. Just so it could provide a half decent experience with games. The 5200 might technically allow you to launch doom 3, but it will run horribly. It could run ok on a better grade of card, I'm not talking high end here either.
Remember, the card is not upgradable, and the machine will likely be around for 3 years or more. In 2 years, all the games coming out will have a doom 3 grade graphics engine, and the 5200 on the iMac will just be totally useless.
I agree, this shouldn't be a tweaked out gaming rig. But it should be at least somewhere in the middle of the road in ability, and it's just not.
I can't think of the last time I had 10 windows open at one time. At that point even on a 20" monitor the clutter would be a real PITA. If you have that many windows open you are either trying to do too much at once, should be using a pro machine (G5 tower) or are the type that leaves every light on and forgets to close the door when they leave.
That is EXACTLY the point of Expose. They didn't make it so you could look at 2 windows side by side on a 20". You can do that without expose. A mac can easily have hundreds of windows open. The average designer will easily have 10-20 windows open working on a project. Photoshop, Final Cut Pro/iMovie/iDVD/Motion/Web Browser/Email/iCal. It all adds up, that's why Apple invented expose!
Let's see, it has a 1.8Ghz G5 (more than the original PowerMac G5 low-end machine), it has a 20" screen, and all the sudden it can't handle 20 windows open at the same time.
There is no reason to use pro machine just because you want to have 20 windows open doing some projects. That's just crazy if you think a person must upgrade to a new machine because 20 windows are open.
Thanks to Moto Apple's sales also took a dive, which is why Apple started working with IBM three years ago to bring out the G5. Add the joys of moving to 90nm fabrication and you have a long, dry spell before any excitement could be brought back to the Mac line.
They did it with the G5 PM and now they are doing it with the G5 iMac, which is $400 to $500 CHEAPER than their G4 predecessors.
At this time the demand for limited G5 chips is going to far exceed supply and Apple delivered a damn good rev a product. I would have liked to seen an option to upgrade the graphics card, like on the 15" PB, and can only guess that there was an engineering or production reason for not including it. When it's possible it will be added simply because it adds more gross margin dollars to the sale.
Apple might bring out a headless iMac (or PM mini) when chip supplies are abundant. Don't look for it to be super cheap though. Even Dell announced that it is going to stop competing with the super cheap PCs offered in China as they cannot compete. You might even see the US flooded with cheap computers that are around $100 less than the cheapest Dell can sell one for.
Look instead for a PM mini with sufficient gross margins to continue to support hardware AND software development. It won't be significantly cheaper that the base iMac, but will have expansion potential and a chance to spend a LOT of money on a graphics card.
Personally I think that they G5 iMac is going to blow out the door - especially for PC/iPod users that discover it is as hard to get as an iPod mini. Order one within a week if you want it for Christmas!
Apple has gone from a 2 segment grid (Low/Consumer & High/Pro) to a 3 segment line. The iMac is now Apple's middle product. It is just like the Accord, the iMac has gotten better and better, and gone up in bracket. The same with Honda's Civic. Apple could use a nicer Civic than the eMac.
Or even if you like BMW, Apple could use a something like the mini cooper. The eMac doesn't have the draw or coolness of a mini.
the Patent could also have been filed merely to prevent a competitor from designing a g4 Imac clone in that shape... if I was a computer manufacturer with a really radical design that is what I would do
That is EXACTLY the point of Expose. They didn't make it so you could look at 2 windows side by side on a 20". You can do that without expose. A mac can easily have hundreds of windows open. The average designer will easily have 10-20 windows open working on a project. Photoshop, Final Cut Pro/iMovie/iDVD/Motion/Web Browser/Email/iCal. It all adds up, that's why Apple invented expose!
If an 'average designer' is using a iMac, then they should be happy with it's performance and work around any limitations (like closing some windows when not needed).
I really doubt that Apple had the 'average designer' in mind when they were designing their "consumer" machine.
Guest wrote: If an 'average designer' is using a iMac, then they should be happy with it's performance and work around any limitations (like closing some windows when not needed).
I really doubt that Apple had the 'average designer' in mind when they were designing their "consumer" machine.
How about an average user. Most people have a few web browsers open, email, a couple of word documents, a few finder windows, ical. The odd calculator or post it. Sherlock. A PDF. Maybe the address book. You're nuts if you think having 10-15 windows open is unusual even for consumers.
How about an average user. Most people have a few web browsers open, email, a couple of word documents, a few finder windows, ical. The odd calculator or post it. Sherlock. A PDF. Maybe the address book. You're nuts if you think having 10-15 windows open is unusual even for consumers.
Erm. I think if you did a poll. you'd find that this simply is not the case. And even so, I just tested Expose on my old iMac G4 - I had well over 20 windows open, in various applications, before I started having problems. Sure they weren't all FCP and the like - a mix of Safari windows, Mail, several QT movies, an iChat discussion, etc - and no problems.
I'm not sure this is as big an issue as you're afraid it will be.
Well, I guess either I'm weird and so are most of the people I know OR I'm very old-fashioned. I've been using a 19" CRT and still don't have that many windows open. I will often have iCal, Address Book, Mail, Safari, iTunes, Preview, Appleworks and Photoshop running at the same time but I either hide the ones I'm not active in or minimize them to the dock. And the average consumer that Apple is aiming at is NOT the sort that will have 10 to 20 windows open at the same time. And my current 32MB card does just fine unless I'm running adjustments to high-res scans in PS and trying to do streaming video, or something similar, at the same time.
How about an average user. Most people have a few web browsers open, email, a couple of word documents, a few finder windows, ical. The odd calculator or post it. Sherlock. A PDF. Maybe the address book. You're nuts if you think having 10-15 windows open is unusual even for consumers.
Erm. I think if you did a poll. you'd find that this simply is not the case. And even so, I just tested Expose on my old iMac G4 - I had well over 20 windows open, in various applications, before I started having problems. Sure they weren't all FCP and the like - a mix of Safari windows, Mail, several QT movies, an iChat discussion, etc - and no problems.
I'm not sure this is as bi an issue as you're afraid it will be.
I'm talking on a 20" screen. You can have 50 really tiny tiny windows open and not exceed the capacity of a 64MB vid card. If you're dealing with bigger windows, they take up more memory. On a 20" monitor, you regularly break over the expose limit where it goes from moving windows smoothly to that chunky movement.
Now expose is still quite useuable, just not as pretty or smooth. Which was the original question of why the 5200 with only 64Mbs not even good as a non gaming card on a 20" machine. Heck, if you don't mind the chunky behavior, you can slap an 8MB card in there and it's still usable. But at 1900bux, it should be a little better than "usable", it should be nice to use. And this graphics card is below par relative to the rest of the machine. It's out of balance with the rest of the machine. As is the 256MB of main memory, but at least the user can fix that through and upgrade. You're stuck with the lame video card though.
I'm talking on a 20" screen. You can have 50 really tiny tiny windows open and not exceed the capacity of a 64MB vid card. If you're dealing with bigger windows, they take up more memory. On a 20" monitor, you regularly break over the expose limit where it goes from moving windows smoothly to that chunky movement.
Well, that I can't speak to, as my G4 iMac is 17". But would it really be that different? And I will say that aside from the QT movie windows, they were not "tiny" by any stretch.
Quote
Now expose is still quite useuable, just not as pretty or smooth.
I will say that on my 17", it was still quite smooth. Again, I won't pretend to know beyond that!
Well, that I can't speak to, as my G4 iMac is 17". But would it really be that different? And I will say that aside from the QT movie windows, they were not "tiny" by any stretch.
Quote
Now expose is still quite useuable, just not as pretty or smooth.
I will say that on my 17", it was still quite smooth. Again, I won't pretend to know beyond that!
Well I'm sure that people will have varying experiences. But this is clear. 10-20 windows on a 20" screen will put it over the top on expose (things will only get worse with Tiger by the way when you have a total entire virtual screen layer that will come in off that memory). If Apple put a 128MB card, you just wouldn't hit that issue. You'd have to go up to around 50+ windows to get things chunky. I dont know about you, but this would be a 3+ year investment for me. And with Tiger coming out and no ability to upgrade that card, it makes me hold off. This would be my only machine and I'd like it to be balanced and do everything well. Not super great, just well. And looking at the demands of what will be middle of the road games, tiger's use of expose layers, and expose, the card really just breaks the decision for me. Maybe rev b will fix this.
Anonymous wrote: If Apple put a 128MB card, you just wouldn't hit that issue. You'd have to go up to around 50+ windows to get things chunky. I dont know about you, but this would be a 3+ year investment for me. And with Tiger coming out and no ability to upgrade that card, it makes me hold off. This would be my only machine and I'd like it to be balanced and do everything well. Not super great, just well. And looking at the demands of what will be middle of the road games, tiger's use of expose layers, and expose, the card really just breaks the decision for me. Maybe rev b will fix this.
Hey, I'm certainly not "anti" better graphics memory. Frankly, I hope Rev.B covers this issue, too. There's been a lot of speculation that Apple's just trying to use up their store of 5200s, so there will be something new once they've depleted their inventory. Here's hoping.
I'm sorry, but if you've got 5-10 apps and 15 windows open, you're an idiot and you deserve the slow performance. I know a lot of "average users" don't get this, but that's just ignorant.
But I'm just an old-timer. I remember loading DOS on a floppy and you could only run one app at a time. Hence, I rarely have more than 3 apps running at once, and never more than 6 or 7 windows.
Just use the thin g right and everything will be fine, folks. Why constantly test your processor/Vcard? Just close some windows!
Guest wrote: I'm sorry, but if you've got 5-10 apps and 15 windows open, you're an idiot and you deserve the slow performance. I know a lot of "average users" don't get this, but that's just ignorant.
But I'm just an old-timer. I remember loading DOS on a floppy and you could only run one app at a time. Hence, I rarely have more than 3 apps running at once, and never more than 6 or 7 windows.
Just use the thin g right and everything will be fine, folks. Why constantly test your processor/Vcard? Just close some windows!
Yea, you're a regular genius by using a multiuser, mult-tasking unix system with great virtual memory to limit it to running only 3 applications because you remember dos. Brilliant.
My G4 1 GHz has a 64 MB ATI card, and it's quite happy running iPhoto with a bunch of other windows in the background.
My 17" G4 Powerbook also has a 64 MB ATI card, and it quite happily drives a *very busy* built-in display plus an external display (ie 32 MB each), or alternatively a 1600x1024 cinema display. Sure, Expose is only "smooth", rather than "so silky smooth you could use it for TV", and Warcraft 3 and Neverwinter Nights only run "well", rather than "E3 gee-whiz demo quality". When the card in a new "entry-level" (for Mac) machine almost matches the card in a 6 month old "professional" machine, I don't really get what you're up in arms about.
"Hey - guess what? The iMac is not a game-playing machine. It's a machine that'll play games, but it's not built for that. "
i totally agree, the iMac has NEVER had anything but a bare minimum graphics card. i remember my RevA Bondi came with a 2 MB Rage card. That was only so it could display 1024x768 res too. most everything else at the time was shipping with 4 or 6 meg cards, 8 on some. to argue that the iMacs GPU is not good enough is just silly, it's never had a really powerful one. it's not meant to be a big FPS pusher, it's there only to drive the monitor (and Quartz Extreme just recently).
Guest wrote: " i remember my RevA Bondi came with a 2 MB Rage card.
LOL- and that only displayed in "thousands" of colors. You needed to buck up and extra $75CND to get 4MB vram and "millions" of colors. My bondi blue babe is still running OS8.6 as an email/web/wordprocessor for my Ex and runs Photoshop 4 very well to this day. The RageII card did suck though. I stuck the iMac Voodoo II gamewizard GPU in the "mezzanine slot" and then it cranked out fps very well for UT/QuakeIII!
Ah... bondi were are you now. Hope the B.tch is treating you well...
The Devil's Advocate - iMac Designs Do's & Don'ts: Don't Mix Pyramids and Snakes
