Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best Buy Selling New Entry-Level iMac for $830 With EDU Discount
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I completely agree. Macworld did a benchmark on the entry level machine. No way that thing should retail anywhere near $1100. Get it with a Fusion drive, there may be value at $1100. Otherwise this would be a poor value proposition at $1100. At $7-800, it makes more sense.
Macworld benchmark:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2366147/lab-tested-new-21-inch-1-4ghz-core-i5-imac-benchmarks.html
Thanks for posting it - I hadn't seen it.
So you pay 85% of the cost to get 50% of the performance. It's products like these that provide justification for thinking that Apple is losing the plot - or taking the p**s, if you prefer.
I don't see how benchmarks even apply to entry-level product like this when the target consumer is not even going to care or would even notice the difference. This product would most likely be faster than what they had and without the viruses.
Here's the thing. You assume the targeted consumer will not care and knows nothing about buying a computer. That's a pretty large assumption don't you think? Even if a consumer is budget minded or cash strapped, that doesn't mean they aren't well informed, or want to be informed. Benchmarks at the entry level could be the difference between buying a product and being dissatisfied and buying the next level up and being happy. So yeah, benchmarks, along with other factors, can be important.
Ex. Do you get the entry level iMac for your college bound kid or do you get an equivalent MBA? or better configured iMac? or, or, don't say it, shhh... a PC. Regardless, an informed consumer is more likely to be happy with their purchase. Benchmarks are one in a number of pieces of information.
That's just one example of many I can provide.
I'm not really sure what you mean with that last sentence, maybe it's some slag against Windows PC's or something.
Yes to me this is a better deal than the new dual-core model. $1030+tax after student discount. But I guess iMac for $830 makes for more of a headline.
Darn, still not the $799 sweet spot that everyone was quoting the other day.
Eh. Close enough.
I don't see how you figure. If you are buying for performance specs, the 2.7 quad core outperforms the 1.4 dual core with the Fusion Drive option, for $50 less.
In any case I think the significance of this model is being missed by many. From the very first rumor of an entry-level iMac, the clear objective was Apple's effort to hit the lowest possible price with the iMac form factor. You don't have to like it or want it, but this is it, just the same. Not everyone buys computers based on specs, and those who do would likely spend the extra $200, the higher price being more about how long you plan on keeping the computer than on whether it's suitable for most purposes today.
I don't recall mentioning buying on specs. I posted the benchmark so others could see how the new machine compares to Apple's other offerings, nothing more. I specifically mentioned the Fusion Drive with an eye towards storage and value being more inline with the $1100 price of the entry model. I don't think many are missing the significance of this model. At least not from a consumer perspective, which to me, is the only one that counts. Apple's objective to hit a low price is of little consequence to most consumers. Forum people? Maybe. I completely agree with you that not everyone buys computers based on specs. I disagree about what the spec shopper is likely to do however. Your example could be right for one person but the next guy could spec shop and decide the lower level machine is enough.
Everyone has their own opinion, and in mine, the entry level machine is worth $800 at best. Someone else might think it's worth $1100. That's okay too.
Well, yeah.. but with an upgradeable HDD and a screen that's twice the size with a much higher resolution lol
----------
This was my reaction as well. Not everyone needs a quad core machine (in fact, 95% of people don't). For them, less money for a desktop Mac is... less money for a desktop Mac.
A quote from the comments section of the MacWorld article you linked:
gregoast
3 days ago
I just got one of these the other day. My first Mac. Been a little tough getting used to the different OS but I love it so far. I looked at both models in the store and really saw no difference in speed. Of course I'm no techie so I really wouldn't know what to look for speed wise, but for my family's needs it was perfect, especially the $200 price difference.
Several have argued that this iMac is spec insufficient for the money, including you, right here in this post. It seems to me that a lot of the debate is about exactly that question. This debate has also led me to suspect that many are missing the point of an entry-level iMac. If you think that low price is not of consequence to many consumers, then I wonder who you believe will find it to be of consequence.
The Fusion Drive is a $250 BTO option on the base dual-core model, which brings the cost to $50 over the base quad-core model. If the benchmarks are to be believed, the less expensive quad-core is the better performer. Since both would also include the 1TB HD, I don't see who would be attracted to the dual-core model with the Fusion Drive option. Not people who pay attention to benchmarks, that's for sure.
You seem to be hung up on my inclusion of the Fusion Drive as an example. It was just that, an example. You are sort of missing the forest (my opinion of this iMac's value) for the trees (Fusion Drive). Again, the benchmark was posted as a comparison of Apples offerings. And yes, I do believe that this config is over priced. I even stated that I think it's worth no more than $800. Best Buy selling it in that range makes sense to me. I also said someone else may see value at $1100 and it's perfectly fine if they do.
Bolded from your comment:
You seem to have misread my quote. I stated, "Apple's objective to hit a low price is of little consequence to most consumers. Forum people? Maybe."
That means most consumers don't care what Apple's objective was. Most care about what they're buying, not the company objective. People in forums care about the meaning behind Apples (or any other company for that matter) actions.
My quote has nothing to do with consumers not caring about low price.
Um. My point was, despite your unconvincing bleats to the contrary, there is a market for it.