Apple Launches New Cheaper 21.5-Inch iMac Starting at $1,099

[ThatGuyInLa]

Apple has become Valve. With 55% of their business, or is it more now(?), being iOS products, the "computer" hardware is a void of lethargy.

Apple isn't motivated. This sector of their business isn't their profit center.

 

[doge8347659374]

1.4 GHz in a desktop computer at this price?

For an 18% increase in price, you double the CPU and the storage capacity.

I expected the cheaper iMac to give you less bang for your buck than the mid-range one, but this is ridiculous. Now I'm convinced that the whole reason for this cheaper iMac is for Apple to be able to say that the iMac now starts at $1,099. That processor is pathetic.

EDIT: You missed that the 1.4GHz processor is also dual-core, not quad-core like the other iMac's processor. Even worse. But why is the TurboBoost speed of the 1.4GHz almost double (2.7GHz)?

 

[trip1ex]

$1300 was just too much for baseline iMac. They needed to get price down. Unfortunately this isn't an attractive way of doing it.

I would have thought with no gPu in base model and no disc drive that price would have come down by now.

 

[doge8347659374]

at a normal working distance on my 27" iMac I'm buggered if I can see the individual pixels. Surely by definition that makes it "Retina"?

I can see the individual pixels on an iMac display. Maybe you're so used to seeing them that you don't realize that you see them. Current iMacs have great displays, but once a retina iMac comes out, you should be able to tell the difference easily.

----------

Nothing wrong with using a ULV CPU in a desktop. It's going to use less energy and generate less heat, which are important considerations in many environments.

As shown by GeekBench, the differences in performance are actually pretty minimal for many applications.

For a desktop computer, the energy usage and heat don't matter. Only for a laptop. Desktops are for having more power. Otherwise, you'd use a laptop.

 

[usarioclave]

And still not updating my 2009 i7 iMac. Thanks Apple, you continue to make my 2009 iMac purchase the best Apple purchase of my life.

Yeah, it's the SE/30 of the iMac series - fast enough, reliable, and solid. That one is sitting in my closet.

 

[doge8347659374]

When will Apple release touchscreen iMacs?

The technology to do so has been available for years now. I don't think they ever will, or at least I hope they won't. A touchscreen desktop computer is a pain to use.

 

[Mattsasa]

This seems like a lame model. And price point seems $100 to high.

Apple didn't even update the CPU or anything else in the rest of the line. Which I was hoping for a slight update.




Why? That is barely enough to load osx. 8 is minimum for a reason today and I highly recommend getting 16 gb ram

strongly disagree,

In just the past few months. I have been working with a wide range of systems, desktops, laptops, low-end, high end. with Mac OS 10.6-10.9. and windows 7 and 8.

and I say 4GB is fine, 8GB is plenty, and 16GB is close to useless.

I don't doubt that there are many people out there that do require 16GB or more for their needs. But I feel most consumers and professionals do not need as much as they think they do.

 

[doge8347659374]

Yeah, it's the SE/30 of the iMac series - fast enough, reliable, and solid. That one is sitting in my closet.

Same with the 2009 MBP. I don't know why, but Apple was brilliant in 2009. That was also the year of the iPhone 4.

 

[Moonjumper]

Yeah, guys. Because they will come into your home and remove mice and keyboards at gunpoint.


Oh, you mean it's an optional input mechanism that is used at appropriate times only? That must be too hard for some to conjure.

The problem is touch needs a different user interface, which is a lot of work for something optional and not suited to the form factor. And compromises the interface for the better suited input options.

 

[doge8347659374]

Why? That is barely enough to load osx. 8 is minimum for a reason today and I highly recommend getting 16 gb ram

4GB is plenty. I used to have 4GB until I upgraded to 6GB. The only time it ever feels limited is when I'm running 2 virtual machines simultaneously with Xcode open. Granted, I'm running Mountain Lion, not that piece of junk known as Mavericks. No OS should ever require 4GB minimum to run.

 

[Tanegashima]

1.4 GHz in a desktop computer at this price?

Surely that's a typo...

Just checked Apple's store and it says the same thing.

1.4 GHz for $1099 or 2.7 GHz for $1299. They're the same line of CPU, so it's an apples to apples comparison. For an 18% increase in price, you double the CPU and the storage capacity. The GPU also changes, but it changes lines entirely so there's no easy way to say how much better one is than the other.

Don't want it? Don't buy it.

Anyone spending less than $1500 on a computer, is underspending anyways...



I'm starting a business in the education market, aimed at high-school students who want to learn elementar electronics and computer programming.

These iMac's are great, and came in a good time for me, they have a good screen, keyboard and mouse for students, look great, and best of all, run Xcode 6, so I can taught Swift to those kids.

$200 (200€) may not be relevant for most, but we are starting with 2 rooms of 20 computers, and 200€ * 40 = 8.000€ (of course less, with the education's discount)

8k€ is a lot for a start-up, and specially in Portugal.

Very happy with this new iMac, certainly better than the 13.3" MBA, albeit no SSD on the iMac...

 

[iolinux333]

Same with the 2009 MBP. I don't know why, but Apple was brilliant in 2009. That was also the year of the iPhone 4.

All those wonderful things were in development before Jobs had the liver transplant. He declined quickly after that.

 

[GhostRaider]

Anyone else think that this new iMac will be the last classic iMac? This may be the transition that Apple has been planning:

iMac Non-Retina (This newly released iMac)
iMac Retina (To replace all other iMacs)

MacBook Pro Non-Retina (A refresh maybe)
MacBook Pro Retina (Already exists)

MacBook Air Non-Retina (The 899 model)
MacBook Air Retina (To replace all other MacBook Airs)

Mac Mini ?

The Non Retina MacBook Pro is in need of a refresh. They might make one more upgrade to it. I doubt they would have to change much in the motherboard.

The Mac Mini is most likely getting a hardware redesign similar to that of the Mac Pro. Usually redesigns take a while and cause Apple to not update them in a while.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Anyone with >$1,000 to spend on an iMac surely can stomach the extra $200 to get a significantly better machine with double the storage (albeit slow), 2.7GHz quad-core, and Iris Pro graphics.

I think buyers looking for cheap are only considering options under the $1,000 price point.

 

[brentsg]

Yes, at the prices Apple pays, I guess 16GB isn't that much more

Memory is a commodity part. If all vendors follow the logic that they should just upgrade to unnecessary quantities of memory just because "it isn't that much more", then the price difference will no longer be minimal.

And that's if it's even minimal to begin with. We have no idea how much Apple pays for RAM.

 

[Prof.]

This is great news for educational institutions.

 

[MacrumoursUser]

Until it ********** jams for no reason a year after you buy it effectively shutting down your entire crow-shooting operation until you can either figure out why it jammed, or get a s***** new crow-shooting gun.

The expensive gun can jam as well.

 

[brentsg]

why would anyone get this when they can get a 27 inch used one for 500 with double the power and a real graphics card?

Because they don't need or have the space for a 27.

Because they can't or don't want to spend more money.

Because they don't need double the "power".

Because they don't play games or use apps that require a better GPU.

 

[KPOM]

And as can be seen in the benchmark, Turbo Speed doesn't seem to help as much as we'd like to think. It's still an ULV 1.4GHz CPU that should have stayed in a thin laptop.

It outperforms the MacBook Air running the same chip, again because of the thermals. Obviously, it will be far slower than the quad-core in the model that's $200 more. But it isn't as if they replaced that model with this one. This is being sold alongside the other model, which is still selling for the same price it did yesterday. So I have no problems with Apple selling it, even if I would recommend the $1299 model more often.

 

[Mattsasa]

I know this topic has been talked about a ton through out this whole thread...

But I still don't understand the CPU choice...

so they switched from a Desktop CPU, down to an ultra mobile CPU, which is more expensive... and then that also means switching to laptop RAM... which is more expensive.

Doesn't this mean that apple would have to redesign and reengineer the internal logic board? seems like a lot of work just to make a cheaper option.

I know that Apple probably gets the CPU and RAM really cheap because of the bulk they buy with the MacBook Air. but if Apple wanted to make a cheaper / budget option. why wouldn't they just use the same socket, and put in a lower end desktop haswell CPU, like an i3 or even a Pentium.


They went from 65W TDP down to 15W TDP...

is this a signal that they are going to be redesigning the low end iMac... that doesn't make sense.

when broad well comes out are they planning on using an ULV mobile broadwell CPU, because those will be out sooner than then the desktop broad well chips.... that doesn't make much either.

are they planning on dropping the price further?


I understand there is a HUGE market of consumers and businesses that are just going to buy the cheapest iMac possible. and not care at all about the specs.

but to create a cheaper computer for this market, I don't understand why they didn't drop the 1tb HDD to a 128GB SSD, instead of the 500GB HDD. Why they didn't drop the RAM down to 4GB to make the price lower, or to increase their profit margin. Why they chose that ULV CPU, instead of just putting in a cheaper desktop CPU.


All this said... those of us on this forum, know that this is poor value compared to the other iMacs and MacBook Air. however, I dare anyone to find a All-in-One PC that is better price/specs than this machine

 

[TallManNY]

There are use cases for this type of computer. For example, it would make a fashionable accessory for a receptionist. Or for a store that wants something more than an iPad on a stand. But I'd also suggest buying it if I knew exactly what it was going to be used for and that usage was very limited.

 

[Tiger8]

It's not like I'm the one who updates Apple's website. Clearly they have reasons for taking that long to update the store - I doubt Apple gets a kick out of making people wait (a poor customer experience) & potentially losing sales.

I know, and it's not directed to you, it's directed to Apple.

And the reasons you list are exactly why there's a whole industry called CPQ (Configure Price Quote). In terms of customer facing, Amazon leads, and even DELL is a pioneer in that area. Apple, I'm surprised, seem to take dramatically long time to update a few SKUs that are not really that customizable. I don't know why,,, Maybe they have home-grown applications for that stuff rather than buy a package from Oralce or IBM.

 

[snebes]

and then that also means switching to laptop RAM... which is more expensive.

Incorrect on 2 counts here. iMacs have been using laptop memory since the switch to Intel. And laptop memory is usually on par, or cheaper, than the desktop components.

 

[Poisonivy326]

Don't want it? Don't buy it.

Anyone spending less than $1500 on a computer, is underspending anyways...

Wow. I had no idea that most configurations of the MBA, as well as some configurations of the MBPr, and many refurbished models, are "underspending" because they don't hit your premium price of $1500.

 

[iMcLovin]

A+ job at a counter argument. You've got nothing, so instead you're just insulting me.

At least have the dignity to admit you were wrong. Because you were. And when you sit and argue, insult, and belittle someone to the point that a moderator gets involved, you should have the courage to say you were wrong.

Why are you harassing me? In my eyes you are the insulter. Am I not allowed to have ideas of what I think is probable without you trying to tell me you know it all and laughing in my face? Also, I said you twist my words because you actually did...
I never said the iMac would be close to a Mac Pro, I just thought it made sense for apple to release an update with the latest i7 and latest geforce, and perhaps a Thunderbolt2 connector update. It´s not an unrealistic assumption, a lot of rumors said this, and it could just as well have happened - the rest was just wishful thinking...but since it didnt happen you make sure to use the chance to grin and and make fun of me.
I never said it would be released at WWDC, but I said it felt natural that it would be released around this time (which was around wwdc and after) if apple would want to bring this new hardware to their iMac. But I guess I was wrong...which could just has well been the opposite.
And for you saying there wouldn´t be any updates to WWDC, you are twisting your own facts. You said, if any hardware would be released at WWDC, it could only be the iPhone 6, which in MY eyes are more unlikely than any iMac coming around this time. So, essentially I was not insulting, I´m just stating the fact that you are twisting your own and my words to your own advantage.

Now, can we lay this to rest? I don´t care if you think you know all about Apple - or even if you were an expert. Maybe I do say stuff lesser likely, because I want it to be true, though I disagree this was what I did this time around. I just like spending money on apple products, and therefor wishing for more upgrades than it seems apple bothers doing these days. If you watch the buyers guide, read forums, etc. you can clearly see that what I was saying isn´t as far fetched as you claim it to be.

Please leave me alone and go harass someone else, please.