Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube

Untitled

The correct name for this model is "Power Mac G4 Cube" and not "Power Macintosh G4 Cube." Apple no longer uses the "Macintosh" trademark in its model names. -Astrovan

Good catch, but next time please use the "Move this page" feature to transfer the entire article with its edit history to the new name. Because you moved the page manually, an admin will now have to delete this page and remove the page properly. (Hey sysops, please do that!). —Ed Cormany 04:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't there a G3 cube as well? I think mine is a G3 cube. Notinasnaid 14:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, not that they ever sold, AFAICT. (Why do you think yours is a G3?)

I stand corrected. More research correctly my flawed memory. Notinasnaid

Remove this Line?

I was reading the Power Mac G4 Cube article and I came across this line of text that put up some red flags in my mind.

"Apple's previous statement indicated that there was a slim possibility of Cube production being resumed in the future, and it would appear that the Mac mini has succeeded the Cube as a small, screenless computer. If this is true, it would be another example of Apple creating a product before its time like the Newton PDA."

I for one find this sentence to be irreverent and self promoting. It has no real purpose other than to shine some lime light on Apple and how they are "before their time".
I for one do not see how them popularizing the silent computer is ahead of their time.
Thank you.
Kenta 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. its not that it was 'before its time', its that it was over-priced. the mac mini sold well because it was the cheapest mac ever. the cube was more than an equivilant system that had a screen. yeah i'm removing that line. Bungalowbill 15:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The cat anecdote ...

Anybody have source material on that?

I don't, but let's google. --Roeme 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just some information that the power switch could be a little too trigger-happy: http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=general&Number=3020&page=20&view=collapsed&sb=6&o=0&part= --Roeme 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In 2000 I got through three of these Cubes within the year -- all but the last one succumbed to the overly-sensitive power button issue, whereby the machine kept switching on/off. In the end I upgraded to a G4 tower -- noisier, but more reliable. I think some of the AppleStudio monitors also had problems with their similarly designed supplementary power button that was in the casing of the monitor and eventually Apple released a version of OSX that enabled users to disable these in System Preferences. Ricadus (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Hey, the Cube has some advantages, Point "Inconviniences" should be renamed accordingly and balanced out with conviniences. Even though there already some outlined in the text. --Roeme 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the whole section is idiotic. Clearly added by a moron with no idea about computers, let alone the Cube. You forgot about the inconvenience of sticking your fingers in the power socket. Also don't forget the inconvenience of throwing the Cube at people; it can really hurt. Oh and you can see through the casing which is an inconvenience if you're only partially sighted, because you don't get to enjoy it like able-bodied persons.

Great work everyone.

Design ==> References in Culture

I renamed the section to summarize what the paragraph is actually talking about--a list of random TV shows and a novel in which the G4 Cube appears. The quote from the book was also entirely unnecessary. What did any of this have to do with the history, motivation, or other decisions behind design of the cube? 100DashSix (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this section must go to the bottom of the article. --Stormwatch (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cube as distinctive-looking staus symbol. Ricadus (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Almost every article about the Cube describes it as "award-winning", which sounds plausible enough, but the details tend to peter out at that point. Which awards did it win, and were they notable? A bit of detective work unearths a Popular Mechanics 2001 Design & Engineering Award here, but are there more? From artier organisations than Popular Mechanics? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Best desktop system by PC Magazine's Technical Innovation Awards in 2000 [1]. Jonathan Ive may have won awards for the design as well. An "artier" design award would be given to the designer, not the product

Citation link to press statement does not contain quoted text

n July 2001 Apple issued a short and slightly unusual press release announcing the product was to be put "on ice." The accompanying citation link does not contain any reference to ice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.248.36 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mac World online

Says the Mac G4 Cube is a flop - citing cosmetics as a main reason.

I agree totally with the cosmetics and marketing concern: customers are fickle and hitting the market squarely and having it all ready on the shelf before it's "old news" is essential.

However at the time the G4 sold very well in the laptop form factor, infact, meaning that customers were simply seeking to get away from desktops of any kind whatsoever.

The lack of "upgradability" is fine: it was a top of line product not needing upgrade. Apple products hit the market using specific hardware and (in general) cannot use "pc store add-ons" unless made for Mac. It is Mac's excellent and TIMELY (on-shelf, out of box) support of the specific hardware inside and TIMELY software that utilizes it (meaning, good multimedia) that both make Mac a great consumer product and inhibit generic add-ons.

The cost: was to be compared to Mac Book or iPhone upgrade. Mac always gets a premium over other brands - although in 2015 they have offered Mac Mini which is affordable by "less worldly consumers" seeking a good brand.

The lack of fan was good: a fan failures/noise are bad for consumers (and batteries) and can be avoided at a price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.201.25 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Seems like an interesting topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "It represented an effort to simplify the computer to its barest essentials, while remaining easy to access the interior." is hard to understand, especially within context. "The New York Times Peter H. Lewis" should have some punctuation. Note: I fixed both of these issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article had some minor grammatical issues, but I fixed them and passed the article. Overall, this is a pretty good article, with good images - necessary for describing such a product - and lengthy but topical prose giving a good understanding of the topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Wingwatchers

I reverted the edits because they were not an improvement. Wingwatchers changed:

• "Designed by Jonathan Ive, the Cube was born from Apple CEO Steve Jobs' interest in a powerful, miniaturized desktop computer" to "It was designed by Jonathan Ive, and was inspired by Apple CEO Steve Jobs' interest in a powerful and miniaturized desktop computer." The original is an example of a stylish appositive, which introduces the sentence and restates the upcoming grammatical subject and Jobs' role was much more than providing inspiration.
• " Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product, a 7.7-inch (20 cm) cubic computer housed in clear acrylic glass" to "The Cuvbe [sic] was was a 7.7-inch (20 cm) cubic computer housed in clear acrylic glass."
• "Apple positioned the Cube in the middle of its product range, between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4" to "The Cuvbe [sic] was was a 7.7-inch (20 cm) cubic computer housed in clear acrylic glass and stood in the middle of its product range between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4." The use of "and stood" does not convey the same depth of meaning as "positioned".
• "The Cube won awards and plaudits for its design upon release, but reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects" to "The Cube received numerous awards and critical plaudits for its design upon release, but have [sic] been criticize [sic] for the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects."
• "The Cube was a rare failure for the company under Jobs, after a successful period that brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy" to "It was a rare failure for the company under Jobs, who after successful period brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy." There is a missing indefinite article before "period".
• "The Cube influenced the design of future Apple products from the iPod to the Mac mini." to "The Cube influenced many future lineup of Apple products ranging from the iPod to the Mac mini." The expression "many future lineup" is not idiomatic English.

I reverted Wingwatchers' edits [2] but they started a potential edit war here [3], which was thankfully stopped in its tracks by a FA Coordinator here [4]. This article is at WP:FAC and should not have been edited in such a cavalier fashion and without prior discussion. Lastly, Wingwatchers (talk · contribs) is out of order in adding their names as a co-nominator at the FAC. [5] This is out of process and should be removed. Graham Beards (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have minimized every strand of stressfulness just to be free of fundamental disputes, I admitted that the prose doesn't quite flow well, but please do prevent any future pings for its too distributing to deal with such hatred and stressfulness. There was one thing, in particular, that was out of self-limitation, "Lastly, Wingwatchers (talk · contribs) is out of order in adding their names as a co-nominator at the FAC. This is out of the process and should be removed", consultation does not indicate that I have personally added to the official roles. @Dr Graham Beards Wingwatchers (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Portals?

Would it be a good idea to add a portal par for this article? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we know the cost?

The page never seems to say what the cost was.

71.166.47.13 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the same. in the FAC @David Fuchs: says "I'm following WP:NOTSALE, which recommends against pricing unless it's integral to the subject in sources, and in general I didn't find that to be the case in coverage". but clearly the price is very important, integral, to the subject; it's very weird to see repeated mentions of it being a failure due the high price while what exactly the price was is never specified.
separately, I find the lack of details about the monitor unusual. from the image it looks like the set was sold with a monitor, but the first two sections only mention details about the CPU and the single sentence about monitors only mentions connectors, together implying the computer came without a monitor like a home gaming console. nevermind, checking the Ars Technica source, it's clear it doesn't come with a monitor. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who find the constant harping about its high price really confusing as there is no indication as to what that price might have been. This is an obvious flaw in what is supposed to be a Featured Article. Especially so since it is highly visible in the TFA slot. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the computer was too highly priced for its day is very important to the subject; I don't believe the actual price is, given that the number as presented is contextless without also detailing the average selling prices of computers from 20 years ago and the starting prices of the rest of the Mac lineup, to say nothing of inflation and the change in general pricing of home computers since. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: the legacy section contains this sentence: "[i]n comparison to the high price of the Cube, the Mini retailed for $499 and became a successful product that remains part of Apple's lineup"; the context is already kinda there, not having the price of the original only makes it more confusing (and dizzying to read as it goes on about high prices without ever giving a number). most other old computer articles seem to have the price listed, I would think that is context enough; and there are tools available to convert prices through time, if people don't have a rough idea anyway. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Apple, themselves, it was $2,299. 71.166.47.13 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Everymac

People keep adding Everymac to cite specifications; it is not a reliable source, certainly not a high-quality one as required by featured article criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)