Why I canceled my order for a 2012 iMac?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by drlipo, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    #1
    I canceled my order for a 2012 iMac 27" because I concluded that, for me, this model is a huge step backwards from my December 2009 iMac 27". The less reflective screen is a definite plus. HOWEVER, the ridiculously thin screen edge required HUGE compromises: 1) SD card slot moved to a difficult to access location on the back 2) elimination of an optical drive. One has the option of purchasing an external optical drive for $70, but in addition to the cost that takes up desktop space and uses up one of the four USB ports 3) whereas the original announcement of the new iMac touted it as having even better sounding audio than the previous iMac, which I was very skeptical about, the early reviews of the new iMac confirm my worst fears -- the bass response is zero, resulting in a tinny sound! 4) while the Fusion drive is a great feature, it is way overpriced for its storage capacity at $250.

    I believe the perfect upgrade to the iMac would have been to simply make the screen less reflective and have a more fairly priced Fusion drive, plus the processor and graphic card improvements. The thickness of the box should have stayed the same (already PLENTY thin), thus allowing the SC card reader to remain conveniently on the side, the optical drive to remain and, most importantly, the audio quality should have at lease been maintained, if not improved.

    The thin edge of the display and weight reduction are meaningless for a desktop machine. The edge thickness will only be noticed by looking at the computer from the side, but never noticed when actually viewing the screen. Ironically, the ultra thin screen edge required the iMac to bulge out to the rear and the new model may actually be even thicker than the previous model. The lighter weight is not important for a desktop machine. This is not a portable unit! Mine has never been moved from my desktop in three years!

    One of the things I love most about my older iMac is the superb audio quality. There is NO WAY I would upgrade to a new model with significantly reduced audio quality, to say nothing about the absent optical drive and hard to reach SC card slot.

    When Apple addresses all of these issues, only then will I purchase a new model. Or, I may choose to go back to one of the great new PC's.
     
  2. macrumors regular

    CaptMike

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    #2
    Thinking more and more about purchasing a early 2012 model
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    #3
    How much is the upgrade in screen worth to you ? IMO a couple hundred, but let's say for you it's only 40 bucks. Go spend 40 on a pair of desktop speakers and voila better screen better speakers than your 2009 iMac and you can even place those speakers to the sides of the new iMac that have been slimmed down so it won't add any more space to your desk. You can now reorder your iMac... except we all know your just trolling and never really ordered one. Also if your holding out for a new iMac with an optical drive, you might as well ask for a floppy and some USB 1.1 lol
     
  4. dontpannic, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2012

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Location:
    Orpington, Kent, UK
    #4
    You'd have to be silly to come to the conclusion that the 2012 iMac is a huge step backwards from the 2009. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

    No optical drive... Who uses discs any more? You don't have to keep the external drive connected all the time. SD slot on the back not on the side? Seriously? It's a two second process to memorise where the SD slot is and work out how to put it in while reaching round the back.
     
  5. peeaanuut, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    #5
    to go one step further, I think you have to be silly to have seen all the specs, had plenty of time to mull them over, THEN decide to cancel the order.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #6
    Lots of people. Just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

    That isn't the point. You have to go out and buy one (you didn't for previous iMac), then you have to haul it out and plug it in every time you use it, then unplug it and put it away when you're done. In the meantime it still takes up desk space and a USB port when in use (something a built-in drive doesn't). In other words, a step backward from previous iMac.

    Then you'd agree he's right, from the perspective of the previous iMac, that represents a step back from the convenience of having the SD slot on the side.
     
  7. tears2040, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2012

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    #7
    I would say every Cd burned for audio reference as well as dvd I burn for clients + dvd rentals such as redbox which are well alive, I would say many people use optical disc drives.....

    I mean you think downloading .mp3 is the same as a pro audio disc sound? Same with blu ray.....
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    #8
    Why bother creating this thread?

    Just curious. Why do these threads keep popping up? Every day there is a new "why I do not like the new Imac" but none of them bring anything new to the discussion (you wish they had optical drives and do not care for the new form factor? wow what a new and interesting point ! :rolleyes: ) these complaints are 100% personal preference based, I personally see every one of the negatives this thread creator made as positives. I thought this site was for rumors and interesting discussion, not personal rants.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    #9
    Where were the specs posted that the audio quality on the newest iMac is seriously reduced? In fact, Apple claimed that it was improved and only a published review revealed the truth.

    Let me restate my point in order to try to quash all the misplaced flaming I have received.

    ALL of the improvements in the newest iMac -- upgraded processor and graphics card, reduced screen reflection, and Fusion drive -- could have been created by Apple at a much lower cost to them by simply keeping the thickness of the device identical to that on the previous model. No one would have grumbled that it was too thick.

    That approach would have allowed for the option of an optical drive, conveniently located SD card slot and, most importantly, a great audio response without having to purchase an external speaker system.

    Let the flamers try to dispute my last paragraph!
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
  11. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    #11
    What I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about the optical drive ... Yes people still use CDs.. I use CDs and I just bought the SuperDrive for my imac and it delivered before my imac so I got a chance to check it out .. First off the SuperDrive's cost is ridiculous but it's very light and well thin... It would hardly take up any desk space and I don't see there being any problem dragging it out of the desk draw i mean c'mon it's no more the pulling out your phone out of your pocket and hooking up to the computer to charge or sync. Next the whole USB Problem,when was the last time u had all 4 USBs being occupied at one time ...
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Switchback666

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Location:
    Caribbean
    #12
    Have to agree op, the slim/thin design its over the top for a desktop or AIO :) the early model was perfect and would keep the price more easy on the eye plus no sacrifice of optical drive and ports placement.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    #13
    Indeed, what is the PRACTICAL value in a super slim display EDGE only, with a bulge in the back creating an overall greater thickness than the previous model?

    I see negatives but zero positives in this new "thinner at all costs" philosophy.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    #14
    My question honestly though is why does the base model cost more now? Also why would they take away the ability for you to upgrade your Ram easily?


    Honestly what is Apple really doing here?
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    #15
    So all of these individual improvements could have been done cheaper in a larger device?? Please explain to me how using the new technology (plasma deposition for glare and direct lamination for overall screen quality) which are innovations that in themselves create a smaller form factor, could have been done at a "much lower cost" if the device had been larger?? -refuted
     
  16. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    #16
    If Apple had not incurred the costs of designing and manufacturing the new super thin edge display with the rounded back, and simply used the older "box" or a slight modification of it, they OBVIOUSLY would have saved money.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Switchback666

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Location:
    Caribbean
    #17
    lol mate that alone wouldnt bump the price so high, anyway i think what the few us say is that keeping they "old" style would have been better :) optical drive still, same ports placement, maybe better cooling system? (Just 1 fan in these rev.) and def. easy to upgrade yourself.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #18
    Ok, I'll bite ^^

    With all due respect, this statement is a bit ridiculous. The 2012 iMac will eat the 2009 iMac for breakfast and then have some.

    Fair enough

    Also fair enough. Nevertheless, optical drives are legacy media and most of people out there just don't use any. I surely haven't touched an optical disk in over two years. My point is that complaining about the lack of ODD is like complaining about the lack of a tape media - both have their uses, but nowadays these are rather niche.

    I hardly see how this is an issue. iMacs never had great sound so external speakers are pretty much required.

    It is not overpriced, simple because there is nothing else on the consumer market you can compare it too. $250 for a 1TB storage with everyday speeds of a fast SSD? What's overpriced about that? They probably could have sold it for $150 as well (average price of a 128Gb SSD), but Apple tax and all that...
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    smoking monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #19
    1. For many this simply isn't an issue. For you it is. Most people are now using their mobile phones as their main camera. For prosumers, it's a bit more of a burden, but for the majority, it isn't. And hey, it's lighter, easier to turn now! Easy to get to that SD card slot!!!

    2. No. Don't push mistruths. One doesn't just have the option of purchasing a 70 DOLLAR APPLE external, one has the option of purchasing ANY external. I have an external and an internal for my 2008 and guess which on I use all the time? Hint, it's not the internal. They are prone to failure and also create a lot of heat. It was always going to happen and I'm actually glad they did it.

    3. This is troubling. The sound not being as good is a poor effort if true. I'd like to see a few more reviews though.

    4. Apple overcharges for everything. Right or wrong it's not surprising. In Japan it will cost me 20,000yen for the Fusion upgrade on the 27. That's acceptable in my books. It's not just an SSD remember. there is software involved.

    5. No the thinness and weight reduction is not meaningless. Another mistruth. It's more eco friendly. Smaller footprint. Less weight for shipping. Easier to move if needed. And it pushes technology forward. Why did TVs get thinner? It's the natural evolution of technology. I applaud Apple for this choice.

    I always find it amusing when the threats to go back to PCs come out. It's like anybody cares. Go back, if that's what you want to do. Chose what is best for your needs. IF the iMac isn't meeting your PARTICULAR needs, then don't buy one. And you haven't. You voted with your wallet. Well done.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #20
    We are not talking about blu ray. And yes, digital sound is better quality than the audio CD. Not necessarily MP3 (which suffer artefacts from the compression rate), but there are other audio formats out there as well. The 256kbps AAC files as offered via iTunes are better quality than an audio CD in every regard.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Switchback666

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Location:
    Caribbean
    #21
    Wtf ? Are you serious ?
     
  22. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #22
    You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    #23
    If sound is important to you, and i'm assuming it is since you mentioned it a couple of times.. why are you using the built in speakers AT ALL? The speakers are basic and suck on all iMacs (compared to proper sound). They are OK for light video or a bit of background music, but that's it..

    I haven't tested the new iMac speakers but if they are comparable to the new Macbook Pro speakers then they should be a definite improvement... i love my rMBP speakers, but i would still never use them for anything other than background music or youtube videos.

    I agree about the whole 'thinner and lighter' debate.. there is just no need. they could have drastically improved the design without trying to make it thin and light as possible, it's a desktop and not needed. desktops need optical drives and they need upgradability. They had their priorities all wrong here, that being said.. everyones well aware of apples direction, the machine is powerful, beautiful and will run OSX great.. so you need to work out whats important to you.
     
  24. leman, Dec 3, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012

    macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #24
    Lossy compression is always a compromise of course. The audio CDs are lower bitrate but they are lossless. But for the practical matters of listening to music, it hardly matters. And digital media are much flexible as far handling, storage and playback goes. This is why I consider than superior in every way. If you consider yourself an audiophile, there is also music to download in lossless digital formats.

    BTW, make an experiment. Let people listen to the same track on CD and on 256kbit AAC, using highest quality audio playback hardware you can get. Do it as a proper 2x2 design. You will be surprised.

    Edit: to clarify, I am wrong (see below). I will leave this post here as another monument to my stupidity :)
     
  25. cyclotron451, Dec 3, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012

    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Location:
    Europe
    #25
    Well buy a top of the range 2012 Mini or a Lappy with the 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display or 27" Apple Cinema Display. I can confirm that the 27" ACD still has great sound. Of course - we're expecting a refresh of teh displays perhaps concurrent with the new late 2013 anorexic MacPro, and maybe the new late 2013 anorexic 27" or 30" display (singular) will have weedy sound. In that case buy a Bose 7.1 roomful of speakers or better still a Laney VC-30 Valve tube amplifier
     

Share This Page