Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
i can sympathise with this point actually. i am also a long time mac user (apple ][e anybody? :)).

for desktops purely, i have an iMac i7 - the screen was the main deal maker for me, the internal storage capacity SUCKS. RAM options are "ok" and the CPU/GPU can be upgraded (i am considering doing it) for about $800aus total.

for my file server i have turned to using a hackintosh with OSX Server installed on it - i find that MUCH easier to use hardware wise then my imac which requires external (and slow) firewire 800 drives if i want additional storage.

meh.

apple - make an xMac!

Or you could just buy a Mac Pro.
 
Or you could just buy a Mac Pro.

i could answer that with a one word quote (i.e. "why") - but thats not allowed ;)

instead ill outline why i dont need/want a MacPro.

1. i have no need for ECC memory
2. i have no need for dual socket Xeons
3. i have no need for a 1.2kW PSU
4. i have no need for a sexy-shiney looking case (ok, maybe i do ;)).
5. my PC case can hold 15 HDDs, the MP can hold 5 (or 6?) max
6. i can put any GPU i want into a PC/hack*
7. i can overclock/undervolt and upgraded components in a PC easier

the list goes on, but they are my main ones for not needing a MacPro.

*with some exceptions of course, but not nearly as limited as a MacPro
 
Code:
1199$ 21.5" iMac

Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 65xxM with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB

1499$ 21.5" iMac

Intel Core i3-2120 (3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 67xxM with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB

1699$ 27" iMac

Intel Core i3-2120 (3.3GHz)
AMD 67xxM with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB

1999$ 27" iMac

Intel Core i5-2500 (3.3/3.7GHz); option for Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB

Ok, to summ it up, 2011 iMacs will be a small upgrade onward to next years new generation iMacs.
As I understood, we will see a speed boost, maybe an SSD mix, lower prices, but thats about it. The quoted post above shows by far the most precise predictions of what we could see and well, that isn't looking too impressive for those who have 2010th iMacs one may assume.
Furthermore I suppose Sandy Bridge, Light/Copper Peak, USB 3.0, Blu-Ray, full/90% SSD, more SD slots or some of these things might come with next years macs and definitely in 2013. So basically if we wish to purchase an iMac, we should wait for the next year ones to have a huge performance, hardware and maybe software boost a.k.a. next gen iMacs. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Ok, to summ it up, 2011 iMacs will be a small upgrade onward to next years new generation iMacs.
As I understood, we will see a speed boost, maybe an SSD mix, lower prices, but thats about it. The quoted post above shows by far the most precise predictions of what we could see and well, that isn't looking too impressive for those who have 2010th iMacs one may assume.
Furthermore I suppose Sandy Bridge, Light/Copper Peak, USB 3.0, Blu-Ray, full/90% SSD, more SD slots or some of these things might come with next years macs and definitely in 2013. So basically if we wish to purchase an iMac, we should wait for the next year ones to have a huge performance, hardware and maybe software boost a.k.a. next gen iMacs. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. We will most likely see Sandy Bridge in 2011 iMacs.
2. Depends when Light Peak will be out but 2012 sounds plausible.
3. USB 3.0 is useless if you have Light Peak
4. Blu-Ray can happen at anytime but Apple hasn't showed too much love towards it.
5. SSD only will take couple of years as flash memory is still much, much more expensive. When 512GB and 1TB are reasonable priced, then we might see SSD only iMacs.
6. What's the point of extra SD card slots?

2012 iMac may bring other interesting features but performance wise it won't be that big deal. Most likely Ivy Bridge and AMD 7000M-series GPUs. However, nobody knows what the 2011 model will bring. Predicting completely new features is hard as it, if something, is nothing else but guessing. Predicting future CPUs and GPUs is much easier.
 
1. We will most likely see Sandy Bridge in 2011 iMacs.
2. Depends when Light Peak will be out but 2012 sounds plausible.
3. USB 3.0 is useless if you have Light Peak
4. Blu-Ray can happen at anytime but Apple hasn't showed too much love towards it.
5. SSD only will take couple of years as flash memory is still much, much more expensive. When 512GB and 1TB are reasonable priced, then we might see SSD only iMacs.
6. What's the point of extra SD card slots?

2012 iMac may bring other interesting features but performance wise it won't be that big deal. Most likely Ivy Bridge and AMD 7000M-series GPUs. However, nobody knows what the 2011 model will bring. Predicting completely new features is hard as it, if something, is nothing else but guessing. Predicting future CPUs and GPUs is much easier.

Trust me according to marketing data. Only an increase in production will drive SSD prices down and my firm has SSD prices falling rapidly. By the end of this year or sooner the prices for a 500G will be around 300$. For OEM"s that price will be even lower. Double the price for a 1TB. You will see SDD's sooner than you think. I say late 11 optional with the redesign or standard in early or late 12. Most likely 2012.

The point here is SSDs will never, ever be able to match hard disk drives on price per gigabyte. But Apple will save on cheaper components such as optical drives and displays to offset the price difference between SSD's and HD's.

Other than that you predictions look spot on. I agree 100 percent.
 
Last edited:
Trust me according to marketing data. Only an increase in production will drive SSD prices down and my firm has SSD prices falling rapidly. By the end of this year or sooner the prices for a 500G will be around 300$. For OEM"s that price will be even lower. Double the price for a 1TB. You will see SDD's sooner than you think. I say late 11 optional with the redesign or standard in early or late 12. Most likely 2012.

When Intel G2 SSDs were released in mid-2009, the 160GB version cost 440$. Nowadays, it still sells for 390$, meaning that it has only came down by 50 bucks in 1.5 years. The only time when we will see major price cuts is when a die shrink occurs. We have now used 34nm NANDs for 1.5 years and 25nm should be out soon. A die shrink means more GBs can be fit into the same space which is extremely useful when considering about bigger capacity SSDs.

However, even though 25nm will bring the prices down, it won't bring them down by enough to make SSDs the only storage in iMacs. It will take at least another year before Intel comes up with new die shrink. Apple can't suddenly go from 2TB HDs to 256GB SSDs. What we may see is an SSD + HD combo as standard as even 64GB SSD would be enough.

The point here is SSDs will never, ever be able to match hard disk drives on price per gigabyte. But Apple will save on cheaper components such as optical drives and displays to offset the price difference between SSD's and HD's.

Platter-based HDs are on their way out. They take a lot more space, cause noise and are unreliable. HDs haven't been developing that quickly either. First 2TBs came in early 2009 and we didn't see 3TBs until late last year. SSDs have gone from <100GB to up to 512GB in couple of years.

HDs won't disappear anytime soon but sooner or later they will. HDs don't get much faster anymore, we are stuck at 7200rpm. SSDs, on the other hand, keep getting faster and faster every year.
 
Well, what can I say. It's interesting to speculate on future iMacs. But. The thing is... I do have an iMac - the late 2009 i7. And guess what - unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself buying a new iMac for a few years. How many years? Well, I bought AppleCare - I bought the iMac in 2010, so my AppleCare runs out in February 2013. But. I bought it with my American Express card, and as a result, I'm covered for an additional year - so, February 2014.

Question: why should I buy a new iMac? I didn't feel any need to buy the 2010 refresh. It just didn't bring enough to the table. Now, maybe there will be software that just doesn't run on such an old i7 (late 2009), and I'll need to get rid of my iMac (though I doubt it) before 2014. So, if not software, and it does everything I need, the iMacs would really have to step up to the plate before I'd consider replacing my late 2009 i7.

So, Apple - go ahead, amaze me, make me buy a new iMac!
 
Well, what can I say. It's interesting to speculate on future iMacs. But. The thing is... I do have an iMac - the late 2009 i7. And guess what - unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself buying a new iMac for a few years. How many years? Well, I bought AppleCare - I bought the iMac in 2010, so my AppleCare runs out in February 2013. But. I bought it with my American Express card, and as a result, I'm covered for an additional year - so, February 2014.

100% ditto! i have the exact same model, and its perfect for me - no arguments from it at all (apart from yellow tint).
 
Platter-based HDs are on their way out. They take a lot more space, cause noise and are unreliable. HDs haven't been developing that quickly either. First 2TBs came in early 2009 and we didn't see 3TBs until late last year. SSDs have gone from <100GB to up to 512GB in couple of years.

HDs won't disappear anytime soon but sooner or later they will. HDs don't get much faster anymore, we are stuck at 7200rpm. SSDs, on the other hand, keep getting faster and faster every year.

Yup. Completely in sync with you there. For similar reasons, I don't see Apple *ever* putting a BD drive into a Mac, except *possibly* an option on the Mac Pro. I think it's more likely they'll slowly phase out optical disc drives altogether as the App Store gains momentum, disk space gets larger, and internet speeds get faster.

The reasons being similar: discs are SLOW, require (comparably) expensive-to-produce, easy-to-wear-out, moving parts-based drives. Additionally, consider this:

The conditions under which discs became an important part of computing were these:

1. When CDs and DVDs respectively came out, they had a HUGE advantage over hard disk drives (SSDs of course didn't even exist back then) in terms of space and overall production cost.

2. The internet wasn't all that popular, and speeds were pretty darn slow; downloading a 4GB movie was simply unheard of.

3. They were pretty physically small compared to what they could hold on them.

Today, none of these things are true of CDs, DVDs, or Blu-ray Discs. 3 is somewhat true of HVD, but that format will most likely never be released, and if it is, it's going to flop.

Hard disc drives can hold 3TB of information. 2TB and 1TB drives are pretty cheap. They're easily (and limitlessly, as far as the life of a typical PC is concerned) rewriteable. SSDs get bigger, faster, and cheaper all the time. Same goes for portable USB flash drives.

The only thing optical discs have going for them now is that they're widely adopted. But so were 3.5" floppies & VHS tapes at one time, and look where they're at now. And I just don't think that's anywhere near enough to save them.

To sum up: SSDs, flash drives (SDXC and beyond), and internet storage is where we're going. If Apple supports Blu-ray at all, it will do so by upgrading the current external SuperDrive, with a *POSSIBLE* internal Mac Pro option.
 
When Intel G2 SSDs were released in mid-2009, the 160GB version cost 440$. Nowadays, it still sells for 390$, meaning that it has only came down by 50 bucks in 1.5 years. The only time when we will see major price cuts is when a die shrink occurs. We have now used 34nm NANDs for 1.5 years and 25nm should be out soon. A die shrink means more GBs can be fit into the same space which is extremely useful when considering about bigger capacity SSDs.

However, even though 25nm will bring the prices down, it won't bring them down by enough to make SSDs the only storage in iMacs. It will take at least another year before Intel comes up with new die shrink. Apple can't suddenly go from 2TB HDs to 256GB SSDs. What we may see is an SSD + HD combo as standard as even 64GB SSD would be enough.




Platter-based HDs are on their way out. They take a lot more space, cause noise and are unreliable. HDs haven't been developing that quickly either. First 2TBs came in early 2009 and we didn't see 3TBs until late last year. SSDs have gone from <100GB to up to 512GB in couple of years.

HDs won't disappear anytime soon but sooner or later they will. HDs don't get much faster anymore, we are stuck at 7200rpm. SSDs, on the other hand, keep getting faster and faster every year.

Trust me on this. I have info the general public does not. I deal with part suppliers who make and sells parts to SSD vendors such as intel as well as a few others. You make it all sound so simple. Believe me it is not, many factors come into play for prices for anything to go down. Even a stuffed teddy bear. It is more complicated than you make it out to be.

SSD's will dramatically go down in price over the next two years as adoption rises by OEM's and consumers. Two years ago SSD's were a niche product. Not used by any mainstream OEM's on a large scale basis.

In order for growth to happen, you need demand and then supply. To drive down costs, production has to be less costly, demand has to be up, and adoption has to be on the rise. All three usually do not happen at the same time. This year all three are happening, as in right now.

That is going to change this year. You cannot go by what prices were a year ago or two years ago. You have to go by market conditions, they are either favorable or unfavorable toward OEM's and consumers. This is the first year in which you will see wide scale acceptance of SSD's and big vendors marketing them as such.

HP, Apple, Lenovo, Toshiba, the big players have all put in big orders for SSD's drives. The prices have fallen, already for OEM's. That gets passed on to the consumer.

The 2xnm migration began last quarter 2010 and this will push down the price of SSDs. The result will be a 140% rise in SSD shipments in 2011 to around 17m units. 25nm is already shipping, 25nm SSD's will be shipping this quarter to the mainstream market.

The SSD price did not fall much in 2009 or last year and had its main applications in servers, industrial, military and high-end notebooks. Not in the mainstream PC market. This year that changes.

However the 2xnm transition is not the only variable in the prices being down this year. Most SSD manufactures improved their manufacturing processes not only in the shrinking of the die, but also the cost of manufacturing SSD's has improved with greater emphasis on efficiency and parts from part suppliers being cheaper.

In two years time, SSD's will be standard fare in all Macs. As well as in all PC's. This year you will see the hybrid of the two. In 2012 that most likely goes away as SSD prices drop again.


"The point here is SSDs will never, ever be able to match hard disk drives on price per gigabyte. But Apple will save on cheaper components such as optical drives and displays to offset the price difference between SSD's and HD's."

You missed my point with this. I was not saying HD's are here to stay. I am saying SSD cannot match HD's because they are more costly to manufacture. It takes years for a manufacturing process to be streamlined enough to be highly profitable and parts to go down. HD's manufacturing costs are about as low as they can possibly get right now, if the parts were any cheaper, they would be free.

SSD's are going to take three years or more to match the manufacturing costs HD's currently enjoy on the large capacity SSDs. The lower capacity SSD's already enjoy about the same manufacturing costs as a the larger HD's.
 
Last edited:
In two years time, SSD's will be standard fare in all Macs. As well as in all PC's. This year you will see the hybrid of the two. In 2012 that most likely goes away as SSD prices drop again.

Let me know when you can get a 2TB SSD for less than 200$. Before that, it's not going to happen. Apple can't suddenly go from 2TB HDs to 256GB or 512GB SSDs. If you're saying 1TB SSD will be 600$ by the end of this year (which I highly doubt as 1TB SSD currently costs over 3000$...), it's still about six times more than a 2TB HD is. That 1TB should be the standard drive in iMacs. It would most likely yield a 500$ price bump, just because of the SSD.

All what you say is just speculation about the pricing. The recent history shows that extreme price drops should not be expected. I rather believe the history than a random guy's speculation in the Internet. Also, a high demand doesn't immediately equal to cheaper prices. If all manufacturers are selling all the SSDs they make, they won't lower the price as they can sell it for the full price.

What OEMs pay for the SSDs is negligible. If the retail price for 1TB SSD is 1000$, Apple won't sell it for 500$.
 
Hellhammer and others,

I think you are missing the point on SSD's. We don't want Apple to replace all HD's with SSD's of equal size. That is a ridiculous expectation in the near term.

I want a hybrid as standard or at least a reasonably priced option.

Give me a 64GB or 128GB integrated flash drive (smaller than SSD's) to store the OS and application directories, and maybe some frequently used files. iTunes and iPhoto or Aperture libraries, etc need to be on the included 7200 RPM 1TB drive that is included now.

That would significantly improve day to day speed and make a huge difference to most people. And it is already doable as the Air has proven. Do it in the Spring/early summer refresh and Apple would be way ahead of most PC manufacturers and would get a lot of business.
 
Hellhammer and others,

I think you are missing the point on SSD's. We don't want Apple to replace all HD's with SSD's of equal size. That is a ridiculous expectation in the near term.

I want a hybrid as standard or at least a reasonably priced option.

Give me a 64GB or 128GB integrated flash drive (smaller than SSD's) to store the OS and application directories, and maybe some frequently used files. iTunes and iPhoto or Aperture libraries, etc need to be on the included 7200 RPM 1TB drive that is included now.

That would significantly improve day to day speed and make a huge difference to most people. And it is already doable as the Air has proven. Do it in the Spring/early summer refresh and Apple would be way ahead of most PC manufacturers and would get a lot of business.

I never said Apple should replace the HDs with SSDs in near future. In fact, what I've been saying is that Apple won't do that in the near future because the prices are way too high. Someday, HDs will be replaced by SSDs but I can't see that happening for years.

SSD + HD combo is the only reasonable option right now and in near future.
 
apple obviously mirrors this thinking scheme too, giving the iMac updates.

Where do you get that evidence? Can you tell us what the iMac updates will be?

I think people are hoping this is the case based on what we have seen with the Air but who knows if it is this year or next?

I really hope it is this year.
 
Where do you get that evidence? Can you tell us what the iMac updates will be?

I think people are hoping this is the case based on what we have seen with the Air but who knows if it is this year or next?

I really hope it is this year.

The current iMac can have SSD + HD combos. That's what he meant by "updates," I'm pretty sure.
 
The current iMac can have SSD + HD combos. That's what he meant by "updates," I'm pretty sure.

Adding $600-800 to have a 256 GB SSD + the HD is not the option I have in mind. Pricing needs to come way down on that and it doesn't need to be an SSD (basically a drive w/ an SATA interface). It should be on board flash like the MBA. Maybe that has an SATA interface too but it is cheaper, smaller, and integrated. That is what MBP and iMac's need!
 
Let me know when you can get a 2TB SSD for less than 200$. Before that, it's not going to happen. Apple can't suddenly go from 2TB HDs to 256GB or 512GB SSDs. If you're saying 1TB SSD will be 600$ by the end of this year (which I highly doubt as 1TB SSD currently costs over 3000$...), it's still about six times more than a 2TB HD is. That 1TB should be the standard drive in iMacs. It would most likely yield a 500$ price bump, just because of the SSD.

All what you say is just speculation about the pricing. The recent history shows that extreme price drops should not be expected. I rather believe the history than a random guy's speculation in the Internet. Also, a high demand doesn't immediately equal to cheaper prices. If all manufacturers are selling all the SSDs they make, they won't lower the price as they can sell it for the full price.

What OEMs pay for the SSDs is negligible. If the retail price for 1TB SSD is 1000$, Apple won't sell it for 500$.




It appears you don't listen very well. I didn't know you were a marketing expert and have access to SSD vendors as well as trading prices.

How do you know what price apple buy's there NAND at. How do you know that the price OEMS pay is negligible?


Now you should know what should be the standard drive in Macs?

No but apple can go from 2TB SSD's which is a option to 256 and 500 and 1TB quite easily. They will go with all NAND in two years time if not sooner. Probably sooner judging on the way the market is going.

There is a very good chance that you will see a hybrid of the two, this year. Very soon. That is all I can say on that. Apple is big on NAND flash right now.

Most people don't need a 2TB internal drive. External HD's will still be plentiful and cheaper than ever. When Apple introduces all NAND flash in their lineup, the capacities will be much lower than they are now. Probably in half of what they are now.

Just three years ago the starting HD in the mac was 256GB and went up to 320GB. That was three years ago.

I may be a random poster on the internet, but so are you. I just happen to be one who knows what he is talking about. And deal with the issues on a daily basis.

Three years ago 2008 on NAND flash, there was a capital shortage, meaning that capital spending was not up to what the demand is in 2010. You have to have enough capital in parts, manufacturing, development, research two years in advance of any market SSD's or otherwise to keep up with demand of a certain product. That is why businesses have market research. Three years ago market research for the major vendors had it wrong for the growing market for SSD's.

When prices go flat, and demand is high, you will see a price drop when manufacturing and parts are efficient and plentiful.

That is what caused a slight increase in prices in SSD's drives in 2009 and a slight drop in 2010.

Market history has nothing to do with it. You cannot base market strategies solely on market history. Again, you are making it out to be more simple than it really is. It's as simple as that.

I guess we will see this year who is right and who is wrong. :apple:
 
Last edited:
Ok, to summ it up, 2011 iMacs will be a small upgrade onward to next years new generation iMacs.
As I understood, we will see a speed boost, maybe an SSD mix, lower prices, but thats about it. The quoted post above shows by far the most precise predictions of what we could see and well, that isn't looking too impressive for those who have 2010th iMacs one may assume.

I have the first generation i5 iMac (27 inch 4850/512) and didn't see any reason to upgrade to the current generation and unless there is some serious movement in the GPU I will sit out the next as well.

What would make me jump, SSD boot + 6 series with 1g memory would be tempting
 
Adding $600-800 to have a 256 GB SSD + the HD is not the option I have in mind. Pricing needs to come way down on that and it doesn't need to be an SSD (basically a drive w/ an SATA interface). It should be on board flash like the MBA. Maybe that has an SATA interface too but it is cheaper, smaller, and integrated. That is what MBP and iMac's need!

It is still SATA. It is smaller and integrated, but it's not really cheaper. Going from 64GB to 256 requires you to spend $600 more. Sure, with that, you also get a bit more from the deal; slightly faster processor & increased screen size (the latter of which not every MBA user wants), but I'm pretty sure if you were to buy just the 256GB sticks straight-up it wouldn't be much different than the 256GB SSD they're putting in the iMacs. It may *seem* cheaper, but that's just because the cost of that "drive" is built into the overall cost of the device.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.