Can Apple get in trouble for falsely advertising the ATI 4850 chip in the new iMacs?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Tymbo, Mar 18, 2009.

  1. Tymbo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    #1
    not that it's what I intend to do, because I'm keeping it no matter what, but if ~half of Apple is saying it's the desktop version (with the other ~half saying it's mobility), and people are making purchases based on that "confirmation", I wonder what the policy is on "I would like to return my iMac because you guys told me that it was the desktop variant and that's what I was expecting, but it's not... that's false advertising."

    I wonder what Apple would tell them/do.

    I can almost smell the lawsuits.... or is this just me?
     
  2. Gregintosh macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #2
    I agree, Apple should be more specific about the components in the computers.

    The reason they are so secretive is because Mobility chips perform worse than the desktop editions. They are probably hoping people look at the model of the graphics card and think its the better performing desktop edition.

    I made this mistake myself when I first got into the mac scene and looked at the graphics option.

    The iMac graphics are not desktop graphics because full size cards use far more power, take up more space, and produce far more heat than the iMac's form factor can handle. Unless of course they are crippled and under-clocked, in which case they still would not be comparable to full-blown PC cards.

    I think the Mac Pro has the only honest to goodness desktop cards in the entire Apple line up.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    Probably just you.

    VERY few people honestly care as it is complete overkill for what they do anyway.
     
  4. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #4
    Even then they're still underclocked.
     
  5. bigmack209 macrumors newbie

    bigmack209

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Location:
    California
  6. viva la ben macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #6
    maybe it will go on Apple's PERMANENT RECORD

    LMAO...maybe everyone should wait until they are actually shipped.
     
  7. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
  8. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #8
    Why does Apple cripple their users like this?
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    Yup, apples computers are barely functional, im suprised they can even keep the time with how underpowered they are......
     
  10. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #10
    *shakes head*
    Awesome, simply awesome.
     
  11. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #11
    Sarcastic posts. :p

    Apple either really wants to fool people or they don't care about details.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    I'm srry, but when people throw around the "Crippled" line around it just annoys me to no end. So they bump it down slightly, most users will never notice.

    I DO think however, that there should be at least an option on the Pro's (they are supposed to be powerhouses after all) to go fully clocked.
     
  13. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #13
    Then why doesn't Apple have something fully clocked on their Mac Pros? Are they scared of something? What are they afraid of? Overheating card? I do not think so in a Mac Pro.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    Why are you asking me? All I said is I would like to see users having that option.

    I do think it may have to do with heat management, but again, I personally do not speak for apple.
     
  15. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #15
    Gotta keep those stylish machines quiet.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Dont they use those frictionless fancy fans tho? How loud do the new Pro's get?

    But yea, underclocking on the iMac i think is purely for heat issues.
     
  17. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #17
    So Apple prefers "more form over function" philosophy.
     
  18. DesignerOnMac macrumors 6502a

    DesignerOnMac

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #18
    I have a Rev. A of the Alum iMac, 2.8, 24" extreme computer. The graphics card, whether it isn't a full card or not doesn't matter to me. I only care about color accuracy, and the speed in which I can work on the iMac to work in Photoshop, Dreamweaver, etc.

    I think there are a percentage of designers who buy an imac, but the general public, I would say, could care less if it was a desktop card, or a mobile card.

    Just my take on this.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    How much more function is an average user going to get out of a 100 Mhz or two in an iMac? honestly?
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    I believe the greater concern is over the Mac Pro. It's still rather annoying when Apple plays off mobile components as desktop ones though on the iMac.

    Average users, here? :rolleyes:
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    Lol you have a point, for some reason when people try to make sense of Apples actions, they forget to factor in the other 98% of customers out there that would NEVER see any real world gains from full clock in an iMac verses underclocked.

    Then again, if you are even thinking about Apple's marketing strategy and if cards are fully clocked, i guess your not an average buyer by any means.

    I need to sit down, all this thinkin is overheating my brain, damn I wish it was underclocked to "average buyer" status.:p
     
  22. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #22
    In other words, 98% of consumers do not care what GPU they are getting or are too dumb to even know if the GPU they are getting is any good. :confused:
    Is this what you are saying?
     
  23. gamer2502 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Location:
    near Pittsburgh,pa
    #23
    If you need that powerful of a graphics card then you need a mac pro and not an imac:apple:
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    I'm saying that the majority of computer buyers have no idea how computers work, or the impact of a GPU. Its not a matter of intelligence, as for the VAST majority, there wont be that much of a difference to them. Apple offers them standard options that are far from being unuseable. These cards will easily handle anything your average consumer can throw at it. The iMacs are consumer computers after all.

    I'm not sure why you think there is a link between intelligence and knowing the ins and outs of something that will not have much of an impact, if any, on their experience.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    Not always, in some cases the imac is underpowered, and the pro is massive overkill both spec and price wise.
     

Share This Page