In his latest column, Alex Salkever urges Apple to "cut off the head" of the flat panel iMac and release "a competitive, freestanding, entry-level computer."
[The iMac monitor is] a beautiful concept. I love the way it swivels, and I often vary the position and angle of the screen (really helps when doing yoga exercises on a mat on the other side of my desk). But the fast-changing world of flat-panel displays has left Apple behind.
Most of the arguments in favor of a headless iMac assume that Apple should introduce a less expensive computer to compete with low-end Wintel machines. But is this really a good idea?
If Apple separated the iMac from its pretty LCD display, the price of the new computer would become much more of an issue than it is now. The current iMac has no popular all-in-one equivalent in the Windows world. (Consumers have to figure out the combined cost of an LCD display and a comparable PC tower.) By contrast, a headless iMac would compete head-to-head (pun intended) with discount white box PCs, which start around $350 at Wal-Mart.
Unless Apple chose to compete aggressively on price, there's no reason to believe a headless iMac would sell any better than the current product. And there's the problem: Apple does not compete aggressively on price. (Not in the low-end hardware market, anyway.)
Apple's current strategy is based on high quality products sold for a premium price. A cheap headless iMac would represent a significant departure from the company's overall strategic focus. (Exhibit A: the $249 iPod mini, which takes aim at the mid-range MP3 player market rather than low-end flash-based players.)
Of course, Apple already has a headless product, but the Power Mac is too big and too expensive to be a "competitive, entry-level" machine. Is it possible to make a smaller, cheaper version of the Power Mac? Maybe. However, making things smaller usually costs more money, not less. (Furthermore, why would it be good for Apple to create a product that might cannibalize sales of the Power Mac line?)
Salkever briefly acknowledges the existence of the relatively inexpensive eMac, but dismisses it as "too bulky for consumers." Just what does he think consumers will use as a display for their new headless iMacs? An external CRT will take up more room than an eMac; a slim and sleek external LCD will cost more. Again, I think the choice here is small or cheap: pick one.
The concept of a headless iMac has been proposed before. The idea won't go away, and there does seem to be some demand -- especially among Windows users who want to keep their existing computer monitors -- but Apple doesn't seem interested.
1. Mr. HappyMac on February 11, 2004 02:32 PM writes...
Wasn't that the cube? I personally loved the cube - concept, although I never got arround to buying one before they were gone. Noe screen, no fuss, and , especially important for home use: no noise!
I never understood why the cube was such a flop - I think noone understood the digital-hub concept at the time. Instead peoble were talking about not enough PCI slots and such.
Permalink to Comment2. Jim on February 11, 2004 02:37 PM writes...
Ummm.... I'm just waiting for CBS, the NFL and Citizens for a Safe Internet to demand that such a brazen image of a female body part be covered up. Gadzooks, it even has a stainless steel nipple ring in the shape of an Apple! Gratuitious! What's next? An iPod with a touch-sensitive dial and centre button? Wait a minute....
Permalink to Comment3. Sandy McMurray on February 11, 2004 02:40 PM writes...
I loved everything about the G4 Cube except its high price and the giant external power supply.
Sandy
Permalink to Comment4. Sandy McMurray on February 11, 2004 02:42 PM writes...
Jim, don't get too excited. It's just silicon. ;-)
Sandy
Permalink to Comment5. Alex Salkever on February 18, 2004 04:52 AM writes...
Thanks for the comments. Let me elaborate. As Apple moves into a market where it makes as much if not more money from selling iPods and other way cool peripherals as it does from low-end to mid-end AIO boxes, then a competitive low-end box does become an advantage. Yes, you can sell the low-end PC crowd an iPod but its harder to sell them an Airport, an iSight camera, etc, etc. Apple is making more and more money from these peripherals. As for Apple competing agressively on price in the low end, well, the iBook is actually fairly competitive with a lot of similar PC laptops in feature set and price. It's a bit slower but not so much so that people won't buy it. And, in fact, they do. Apple has had huge success with the iBook. So I think that may imply that a headless iMac with solid sales and secondary benefits to Apple is far better than an iMac that is rapidly pricing itself so far out of the market that even people seeking an AIO experience are cowed.
Permalink to Comment