Hey Yebubbleman, I think we both made our points clear and yet we still disagree on the topic, so I think I'd better stop arguing - this is just wasting bandwidth. However, I'd like to comment on all that price comparison stuff, because I think that we might have a fundamental misunderstanding here (or rather, a radical difference in our approach).
When I talk about tower vs. iMac price comparison, I am talking about matching features 1 to 1 precisely. It is absolutely clear to me that a tower is more customisable, offers more opportunities to save money or tweak performance, lets you reuse your old monitor and peripherals. However, the iMac is a tiered machine. It comes in some specific configurations (and let's for the sake of the argument, not talk whether these configurations makes sense or not). So when I try to evaluate whether its price is reasonable, I must look up the price of specifically these components. In another words, I try to see how much a tower with exactly the specs of the iMac would cost.
This is why I am including a 1440p IPS monitor (because the iMac comes with one of these thing), a designer aluminium case (because the iMac is one of those things), at least an 80 Plus Bronze PSU, a 3x3 WiFi chip, Thunderbolt, Bluetooth 4.0, wireless peripherals etc. - because they are included in the iMac either you want them or not. The result is that the price of the components themselves is more or less equivalent to what Apple charges (btw., I have a 560 Ti in my list because I think this is what most closely matches the performance of 675MX. Surely, both 660 series and 670 will be faster - but they also cost more).
Now, I completely agree with you that a custom built tower will offer you better bang for buck if you customise it to your needs/skip on some of the components or simply reuse what you already own. But my entire point was that matching the iMac spec-by-spec from scratch does not save you money (and it is entirely possible that you still do not agree, but I've kind of given up to try to convince you). Ergo, if I a) have to build a machine from scratch, b) don't want to bother with assembly/setup/maintenance, c) don't care for upgrades , d) want to have a good-looking and pleasant to work with machine, the iMac provides me (and her I am talking specifically about myself) a better user experience for comparable price.
I appreciate the "let's just agree to disagree" sentiment, but no, my findings didn't conclude a $200 difference, it concluded a much larger difference. Even if we're talking spec for spec (which would be impractical to do in real life), I'm still not finding that, but really, you're right, that's a pointless debate. The fundamental issue is that with an iMac, you have less choice, less freedom and much more needless compromise in exchange for a mid-range Apple-branded desktop running a version of OS X that you don't have to research how to get working (with custom KEXTs, patches, drivers, and bootloaders). Unfortunately, that's Apple's ransom and many who can't afford the legwork to build a hackintosh but still want a desktop running OS X have to pay that price. Frankly, given that even on an identically priced tower, you can upgrade parts as needed, an iMac ultimately costs way more down the line as you can't give it a larger hard drive later on. In the case of the 21.5", you can't even give it more RAM if you were unable to afford the 16GB upgrade at the time of purchase. That ends up costing way more down the road. The annoying thing is that on the 27" iMac (as well as earlier 27" iMacs, earlier 24" iMacs and, I think, earlier 21.5" iMacs) the GPU is slotted and thusly, a replacable part; but unlike a tower, and even gamer laptop PCs where said slotted GPUs are found, you can't replace that card later on.
Yes, it's a designer computer. But I'm sorry, being able to upgrade parts is a premium feature, and that computer is anything but premium, for a desktop. Being able to upgrade and easily service your computer is a HUGE feature to lose on nothing but aesthetics. Were it done that way for functionality, you'd hear me praising that design decision. Alas, I see no benefit other than looks. And again, My PC tower is no uglier than any iMac I've ever seen.
I never had the urge to show off with anything
If you think that owning nice things is only for showing off, then I am sorry for you. Some of us like to own nice things because they are, uhm... well, nice. When I spend 14 hours a day in from of the computer it must be something that gives me pleasure to work with it.
Fair enough. But there is such a thing as being beatiful internally as well as externally. The non-retina MacBook Pro is a fantastic example of this. It is both practical, easy to service and upgrade, and externally beautiful. That's a machine I can get behind. A machine that is only superficially beautiful is impractical, and at more than $1000, I can't afford to buy something impractical.
Ummmm no. There's nothing wrong with wanting some nice style for a computer. You don't need to show it off to be able to enjoy it yourself.
There is if that style overrides functionality. In paying for thinness, power, expandability, longevity, upgradeability, durability, and reliability are all sacrificed. If the machine cost as much as an entry-level Mac mini, then I would be accepting those sacrifices. But at $1299+? No way. Nice style for a computer isn't worth THAT much.
Now this if of course it's not like the iPad mini; $80 more than the competition which gets you nice style, less RAM, less storage, inferior screen. Style doesn't justify lack of specs at a greater price IMO.
The iMacs kind of are though. Paying for weaker graphics, weaker drives, no optical drive, no audio-input connectivity, and all for what? Style? Aesthetics? Why? What's the benefit other than enjoying it when it's turned off? It's not like most people using a computer look at anything surrounding the LCD panel while they're using it.
