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.
Apple Releases New iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know if it still isn't ahead of its time. If stuffed with the current iMac's internals, it would make a great SFF machine or a "fragbox", but its not going to replace an full ATX tower in most cases. Well, here it would because we're desperate. It cheap enough, it might make a good iMac complement against MATX machine though.
Well, I would definitely vote for the second case then...
1 - Apple is doing better than any other computer company in the world;
2 - its products have the highest ratings in terms of reliability, satisfaction and design;
3 - I would NEVER count on MacRumors members to determine market demand...ordinary people couldn't care less about the presence of 1 or 2 PCI slots in their machines. Apart from RAM and, in extreme cases, HD, nothing else is replaced by normal customers;
4 - Apple is driven by design, not by profit. No, this doesn't mean they don't care about the bottomline...but their bottomline comes from two basic winning factors: creating real demand with great products when most others are unaware of it (iPhone, colored boxes, AIOs, REALLY functional mp3 players); and optimizing function with stunning form. No wonder most Apple products have always received prizes for ergonomics, looks and ease of use.
5 - No, SJ does NOT work alone.
So no, I don't share this gloomy view that Apple has no idea about a midtower...they do, and they know it's gonna be stupid business to replicate it beyond an updated Mac Mini.
Why one or the other of such extremes? IMO, they're neither "very stupid" nor have they reached a point where things couldn't be done better. When there are growing complaints about a lack of choice in the Mac range, which is also widely-believed to be a main reason for impeding further growth in Mac market-share (after all, it can't be the popularity of Vista!), surely you rectify that by offering more choice, not less?
The current range is fine for those that love these designs; the problem lies with what's missing for those that don't. - BTW, I'm not suggesting that Apple competes on every level in the computer market, but merely expand their options.
I agree. Pity Apple don't do market research. If they did, they'd realize that there's a growing demand for something like the Cube today.
Totally agree here. What's the point of having mobile - and therefore weaker - components in a desktop? The iMac is nice but it's already way behind the curve.
Exactly.
The last iMac proves that point when they throw a pretty much high end video card when nobody really expected it. They do listen and they do know what they are doing but they try to implement it into their business plan (vision) instead of simply throwing out another product and disturbing current sales (market) growth.
New product means new research team, new developement team, new product line which equals higher costs and there is a possibility it will never breakthru sinking huge ammounts of money.
They are very smart with what they do as they keep the company healthy yet provide excellent (well let's forget iMac's 20" display for a moment) product with every new release.
I'm a former Forex Dealer and I see market as a huge bowl where everybody is throwing their money in but only a small percent shares it's content by doing it slowly and patiently without the 'gambler's attitude' where you play all out to gain huge profits.
Smart players will settle for less keeping their income steady with minimall loss and in the end they end up with fortunes.
That's exactly how I see Apple.
Of course everybody makes some sort of mistakes but they know very well how to minimize them.
Fantasy
Like nearly all companies, Apple is almost entirely driven by profit. Of course they are. Do they have a different business model than Dell to achieve that profit? They sure do, but profit is still what makes them go.
Apple sells boutique computers into profitable niches. Their brand, their reputation for ease of use, and elegant industrial design can command a higher price, and a much larger profit margin, especially since their move to commodity parts for Macs. Dell and most PC makers sell whole PC as commodities, and volume is how they make a profit, with incredibly tiny profit margins. It's a real struggle.
To justify boutique pricing, Apple is very focused on external design. Actually, they aren't quite as focused on ease of use as they used to be in the Mac line; in some ways, the Mac is less usable than it used to be, though there are improvements at times. But Apple continues to earn its stars for ease of use as evidenced by the end-user innovation they have put into the iPod and the iPhone. Fortunately, Microsoft is uninspired at ease of use and can't force PC makers to embrace sexy design (though Sony Vaio's are reasonably attractive; but for that much money, I'd always take a Mac).
Apple has also embraced planned obsolescence as a linchpin of their "low end" line of computers. When Jobs returned to Apple, he told a story of how a lady approached him and praised Apple for creating a Mac that was so expandable it was still in productive use 10 years later; it was even still running the latest Apple OS! He told shareholders "that means that lady hasn't given us money in 10 years!" So today we have the Mac Mini and the iMac, elegantly designed for the short term but also designed to be replaced after a few years. From a consumer perspective, like that nice lady who spoke to Jobs, this is a punitive policy, but it lines Apple's wallets with cash, and so it's good for business...and until consumers tell Apple they won't buy unexpandable machines by voting with their pocketbooks, don't expect this practice to change. If anything, Apple might actually snare a few extra high Mac Pro purchases by people who hate planned obsolescence. Seems pretty win-win for Apple right now.
The switch to Intel was part "performance per watt" and part pure profit driven, so that Apple could charge boutique prices for PCs based on commodity-priced parts. Power Macs had a lot of expensive custom chips. Now, Intel designs a lot of Apple's motherboards and components, and willingly so, in their fight against AMD. Remember we fantasized that commodity parts meant much cheaper Macs? How funny was that! Actually, it meant higher profit margins for Apple and much better ability to grab "switchers".
Don't fool yourself; although Apple has a different business model than other PC makers, it is still completely driven by profit. Profit through product differentiation is still just as much profit as achieved through volume-based commodities. Money they say still makes the world go 'round..
Like nearly all companies, Apple is almost entirely driven by profit. Of course they are. Do they have a different business model than Dell to achieve that profit? They sure do, but profit is still what makes them go.
Apple sells boutique computers into profitable niches. Their brand, their reputation for ease of use, and elegant industrial design can command a higher price, and a much larger profit margin, especially since their move to commodity parts for Macs. Dell and most PC makers sell whole PC as commodities, and volume is how they make a profit, with incredibly tiny profit margins. It's a real struggle.
To justify boutique pricing, Apple is very focused on external design. Actually, they aren't quite as focused on ease of use as they used to be in the Mac line; in some ways, the Mac is less usable than it used to be, though there are improvements at times. But Apple continues to earn its stars for ease of use as evidenced by the end-user innovation they have put into the iPod and the iPhone. Fortunately, Microsoft is uninspired at ease of use and can't force PC makers to embrace sexy design (though Sony Vaio's are reasonably attractive; but for that much money, I'd always take a Mac).
Apple has also embraced planned obsolescence as a linchpin of their "low end" line of computers. When Jobs returned to Apple, he told a story of how a lady approached him and praised Apple for creating a Mac that was so expandable it was still in productive use 10 years later; it was even still running the latest Apple OS! He told shareholders "that means that lady hasn't given us money in 10 years!" So today we have the Mac Mini and the iMac, elegantly designed for the short term but also designed to be replaced after a few years. From a consumer perspective, like that nice lady who spoke to Jobs, this is a punitive policy, but it lines Apple's wallets with cash, and so it's good for business...and until consumers tell Apple they won't buy unexpandable machines by voting with their pocketbooks, don't expect this practice to change. If anything, Apple might actually snare a few extra high Mac Pro purchases by people who hate planned obsolescence. Seems pretty win-win for Apple right now.
The switch to Intel was part "performance per watt" and part pure profit driven, so that Apple could charge boutique prices for PCs based on commodity-priced parts. Power Macs had a lot of expensive custom chips. Now, Intel designs a lot of Apple's motherboards and components, and willingly so, in their fight against AMD. Remember we fantasized that commodity parts meant much cheaper Macs? How funny was that! Actually, it meant higher profit margins for Apple and much better ability to grab "switchers".
Don't fool yourself; although Apple has a different business model than other PC makers, it is still completely driven by profit. Profit through product differentiation is still just as much profit as achieved through volume-based commodities. Money they say still makes the world go 'round..
You make expanding their line of options sound so unfeasibly complicated for Apple. Yes, it makes little business sense for Apple to compete on every level of the computer market. That's not what most people are asking for. But if we must be tied down to a limited range of hardware designs, Apple could still fairly easily expand the options offered to consumers without significantly detracting from their main business plan.
Apple obviously realizes the appeal of dedicated graphics, or else they'd release a very cheap iMac with integrated video (as they used to have). So why then limit people wanting dedicted graphics to either having glossy screens (which are hardly neutral for a lot of consumers, & the 20" ones are of debatable quality), buying an expensive Mac Pro, or settling for a Mini without dedicated graphics?
Granted they won't now offer a matte iMac, so why not a dedicated video card option on the Mini? Any cannibalization of iMac sales would almost certainly be offset by more switchers & increased sales of such a higher-priced Mini. There's really nothing terribly complicated about any of this & it would probably satisfy a lot of people.
Honestly, Apple is developing a frugal side which is at the expense of performance. Unless you have a high end model imac, mac pro or macbook pro, you are out of luck on graphics chips.
if you look at the decisions apple has made, they have cut component costs across the board, additionally they even stopped including the remote control on laptops, removed modems and much more.
If you look at the Macbook Air as an example, it has the fewest built in option.
it is absolutely amazing, they charge premium pricing, but offer less. Don't get me wrong, i love OS X, but apple is starting to be cheap and it shows.
with more computers being sold, from laptops line expanding to include the air, why the hell not have a midsized tower? my bet is sales of desktops would shoot up nicely. alot of pc people do not want imacs. they want to keep their monitors. they want to be able to upgrade graphics cards and hard drives. but not at the cost of a mac pro.
so... if more models were offered, more macs are sold. end of story. yes it may mean less mac pro's or imacs sold to people who would prefer a midsized tower, BUT THATS OK. as apple expands and sells more units, they need to offer a more diversified Mac product line.
nothing will make me change my mind on that, by having a broader product line, it will allow Apple to take on DELL, HP and others.
but i wish us luck on that, Hell apple even had intel create a modified faster version of a cpu to stick into the imac. Why? to save on redesign costs on motherboard and more. this new model just has minor tweaks instead of major ones which would cost a little more.
Apple is too frugal and it shows
You can't
Well, you can't forget the iMac 20" display, can you? It is an experiment that has worked out very well for Apple, seeing what they can get away with. All companies work this way; it's human nature. They didn't NEED to put in better more expensive displays if they can still sell the model with cheaper, lower quality ones and charge the same.
If anything, it might push users to the higher profit margin iMac 24" to get a decent display. And some people with the iMac 20" don't know what they are missing, like so many Windows users using XP or Vista. It's win-win for Apple.
Well, you can't forget the iMac 20" display, can you? It is an experiment that has worked out very well for Apple, seeing what they can get away with. All companies work this way; it's human nature. They didn't NEED to put in better more expensive displays if they can still sell the model with cheaper, lower quality ones and charge the same.
If anything, it might push users to the higher profit margin iMac 24" to get a decent display. And some people with the iMac 20" don't know what they are missing, like so many Windows users using XP or Vista. It's win-win for Apple.
Because it is complicated for them.
They can not throw one component into all their products as all of them use totally different design. If it would be that easy to move all what's inside a iMac into a Mini you think they wouldn't do it?
Design is Apple's key figure and they adapt their resources to it not other way around. To put iMac's GPU into Mini means whole new team for them and for companies like Dell is a simple 'drag and drop' in most cases.
It is complicated and damn expensive.
Huge development costs that went with Air and it's not impressive sales need to be covered somehow. So they just throw a cheap monitor into one of their models
Any other company does pretty much same thing but Apple's mistake was to do it in such a obvious way.
Yeah, right. I'm really going to miss the huge drop in framerate I'd get switching to a 24" screen powered by as substandard GPU.
I knew that Imac was using laptop technology, but I still assumed that the Imac was a very capable and powerful machine.
Yes, I can understand that the price gets higher with the build in screen, but still...
Exactly.. how weak is the high end Imac compared to the best consumer level desktops that you can buy from Alienware, Dell and so on?
Yes, I can understand that the price gets higher with the build in screen, but still...
Exactly.. how weak is the high end Imac compared to the best consumer level desktops that you can buy from Alienware, Dell and so on?
1 - iMac $2199
2 - consumer lvl desktop from alienware with very similar specs - $1998 (and that includes a 24" samsung monitor) add shipping which is free at Apple and you are set at around $150 difference.
Now $150 difference and very similar specs.
Now answer yourself one question. Do you prefer a system that you can easly upgrade in the future but use Windows only or go few $ more and enjoy both worlds at the same time with a million less software trouble.
Question is why you call hi end iMac weak cause for sure last refresh made it far above good if not awesome. Ignorance?
Very simple.
I used Maya and 3DS on a XP system that used to crash in the middle of the render (take in mind sometimes it takes 4-5 weeks for bigger file to complete).
Cubase 4 or Nuendo. Constant crashes with XP and Vista especially under high pressure during track mixdowns. I wont even mention Gigastudio.
System clogging after shot times forcing me to reinstall the system.
Both XP machines were bought as dedicated systems to perform specific tasks. None of them made me happy.
And this is only my recent history.
Now... I never had any of those issues on any of the macs I work with and that will be over 2 years now.
Yesterday I was doing a render test using Vue 6 and Poser 7 at the same time. Took longer but iMac didn't ever speed the fans too much. Smooth as newborns ass.
Welcome to the obvious...it's good that some people are here to tell about the superior experience of owning a Mac...one of my workmates just bought a MBP after owning a Dell laptop (I convinced him to do so)...after working with OS X, iLife, virus-free operation, no adware, backlit keyboard, system preferences and having astounding performance, ask him if he ever wants to come back to a PC...it's a FACT that Macs are a one-way road...you NEVER downgrade to a PC after experiencing the best...
i would have a hard time choosing between:
a) a top of the line imac
or
b) the cheapest mac pro, and then getting an old CRT for free
the prices would be comparable, and the CRT would be a better display than the imac display, which for me is the biggest turn off. but the imac would have the better gfx card and bigger HD...
a) a top of the line imac
or
b) the cheapest mac pro, and then getting an old CRT for free
the prices would be comparable, and the CRT would be a better display than the imac display, which for me is the biggest turn off. but the imac would have the better gfx card and bigger HD...
Whoa! They're not the same at all.
The Alienware I presume you're comparing is the Area 51-7500 which has a proper Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz CPU running a 1,333 MHz FSB and a single 512 MB nVidia 8800GT with similar hardware for the rest.
This is much, much better hardware than the iMacs. In addition Alienware are very reliable - which is why they're pricier than most custom builds.
Welcome to the obvious...it's good that some people are here to tell about the superior experience of owning a Mac...one of my workmates just bought a MBP after owning a Dell laptop (I convinced him to do so)...after working with OS X, iLife, virus-free operation, no adware, backlit keyboard, system preferences and having astounding performance, ask him if he ever wants to come back to a PC...it's a FACT that Macs are a one-way road...you NEVER downgrade to a PC after experiencing the best...
I'm going to stick with this post as my response. I'm more then happy to extol the virtues of running OS X but there's no need to give Windows a bad name. It's a fine operating system for most users but it still has many flaws that stem from its DOS days.