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.
Hold on, an iMac is comming!
- Thread starter Gimyslog
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We just went full circle in the last couple comments. My concern was soldered memory in the new hardware. Reply was no don't worry Apple only does that in slim quarters such as MBA. Next article referenced implies slimmer iMac redesign....
Crap, really didn't think about that. Although I probably would never want to mess with anything that is not user-serviceable.
The new 2012 iMac
After reading a lot of the articles about this and seeing 2011 iMac being discounted, I would put money on there being a new iMac with the ML release. I doubt it will be a significant upgrade but rather to meet the expectation of the masses.
After reading a lot of the articles about this and seeing 2011 iMac being discounted, I would put money on there being a new iMac with the ML release. I doubt it will be a significant upgrade but rather to meet the expectation of the masses.
Not to meet anyone expectations because expectations are already set high. Apple will release a computer to keep up with technology.
'Well
I have to say that I don't understand why we ever thought that there will be a Imac in WWDC.
all point to July or after, and I can understand apple ( so far...)
Up until this month some components were missing, (the GPU.) and there was no logic to upgrade the computer halfway.
And the pattern of : quarter call, OS release and new macs, repeat every year, so why no this year?
The October release is (at least what I think) from Digitimes related to the retina macbook pro 13" and not imac
After reading numerous articles, comments, and looking on the apple history, (this is my first Imac buy, so up until now I wan't in this biz)
I have to say that I don't understand why we ever thought that there will be a Imac in WWDC.
all point to July or after, and I can understand apple ( so far...)
Up until this month some components were missing, (the GPU.) and there was no logic to upgrade the computer halfway.
And the pattern of : quarter call, OS release and new macs, repeat every year, so why no this year?
The October release is (at least what I think) from Digitimes related to the retina macbook pro 13" and not imac
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this.
1) We really wanted them.
2) They were already late, per the Buyer's Guide.
3) If you assumed they were using AMD GPUs (as they did last year), then the components were in fact already available.
4) Parts list came out, and some people mapped some of the parts to possible iMac models. Later, other people got new information and mapped the parts to MBAs and Retina MBPs instead, but we dismissed it as a bunch of malarky.
I had been arguing that they wouldn't release an iMac at WWDC because they had never done that before, ever. That turned out to be true. But I was using the argument as a way to justify an earlier prediction, not a later one.
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this.
1) We really wanted them.
2) They were already late, per the Buyer's Guide.
3) If you assumed they were using AMD GPUs (as they did last year), then the components were in fact already available.
4) Parts list came out, and some people mapped some of the parts to possible iMac models. Later, other people got new information and mapped the parts to MBAs and Retina MBPs instead, but we dismissed it as a bunch of malarky.
I had been arguing that they wouldn't release an iMac at WWDC because they had never done that before, ever. That turned out to be true. But I was using the argument as a way to justify an earlier prediction, not a later one.
The buyer's guide does not really tell us whether a product is "late" or not.
Granted. "Due" might be a better word. Or, at least, the opposite of "Not being updated immediately because we just did that."
Indeed. The buyer's guide does not take any factors into consideration apart from average time between refreshes, which does not really indicate anything. Just because Apple updated a product in June 2010 and June 2011, does not automatically mean that they will update the product in June 2012.
I think a lot of the time around here "late" means "it's not available now, when I want it"
see also "lame" - "Doesn't contain everything I want"
exactly,and also if nothing new come hardware wise, what reason they have to change the imac? just the number of days?
Such decisions are not made in a vacuum. Part of why Macs have, in past instances, been refreshed roughly on a 9-month clip is that usually there are a new set of CPUs out by then or the existing CPUs get a price cut from Intel, the prices of storage and memory have changed (same amount gets cheaper, or same price point gets larger, in other words) and other components gradually evolve on an ongoing basis -- entire PCB daughterboards used to contain functionality that we now get in single chips, or parts of chips. It's the pace of technology and the computer market. You can only sell that four gig o' RAM for $100 for so long... after a while people can get eight gig o' RAM for that much. Or four gig o' RAM for half as much. This, as much as anything else, drives the refresh cycle.
Accordingly, expecting a full redesign every 9 months would not have been reasonable, but expecting a spec bump on that timetable IS reasonable. Notice that the Macbook Pro DOES get refreshed on that timetable pretty reliably. February 2011, October 2011, June 2012. The notebook people got theirs, on time and full of awesome. That's why all the gnashing of teeth over the iMac these days... they are well over 150% of the usual refresh interval and there is almost no sign that Apple plans to remedy the situation. The May 2011 iMac is a terrible value right now: either it's good enough but priced too high, or its price is acceptable but its tech is outdated; take your pick, as they are two sides of the same coin. If there had been a spec bump in, say, March or April, and there was no redesign due until late fall or even early 2013, you'd hear an order of magnitude less complaining here. The vast majority of those clinging to hope would have updated two months ago and the current machine would be much closer to par value for its price and capabilities.
Ok, so I would expect maybe price drop until now, but new iMac when no major new hardware exist is silly from apple side. Would you be happy with the same iMac in April but with USB 3? Is this something that worth changing all apple manufacture line?
Of course not.
So, new gpu, new CPU, new USB 3, new anti glare screen, that's enough components to call for a change and all of the parts came just this month. So I can see why apple haven't released new iMac.
I agree they could cut the current iMac price by 20 % in April for example.
You think that's not enough for a upgrade? Seems you think apple should reinvent computers constantly. If I get a new gpu and CPU and USB 3 I would be very happy ( with today's ivy and nvidia you would get a decent speed bump with less power usage). I would also expect to get ssd for a lower price and optional more ssd than now...and the ability to add up to 64 gb of ram should be possible. If I get this I'd be super happy. Anti glare screen then it's party time !
Why should apple be ashamed of such a release??
Yes, certainly. And, actually, this is something that all the computer manufacturers (by which I mean the actual factories: Hon Hai Foxconn, Pegatron, Fuji Heavy Industry, Samsung, etc) are well-equipped and prepared to do. It's definitely worth making what is basically a trivial change in production. The only time they have to retool is when a substantial architecture difference is introduced. They do this all the time for various computer, TV, and smartphone product lines.
Thus, either of the following two scenarios earlier this spring would have made sense production-wise and been perfectly acceptable to me and, I suspect, many of the iMac waiting crowd:
1. Base 27" unit stays at $1699 and default config changes to slightly faster Sandy Bridge CPU; same GPU; from 4GB RAM base to 8GB RAM base; from 1TB HDD base to 2TB HDD or 128GB SSD base; USB2 to USB3 (though admittedly that last one is a somewhat taller order than the others). CTO option prices cascade to current component pricing accordingly (i.e. the old cost of a 2TB HDD upgrade becomes the new cost of a 3TB HDD upgrade). We all wait until early 2013 for an actual redesign, but anyone who needs a new iMac now can get one that's a good value.
2. Base 27" unit stays as configured but default config price becomes $1449. CTO option prices drop to remain at par with current component pricing.
Most PC manufacturers would do option 2, because they don't keep small homogenous model groupings -- they just constantly release new models and new hardware. Apple would likely do option 1 (and typically has done so) because they manage their offerings much more tightly.
Without a doubt, there are folks who will never be satisfied with whatever is offered and will be stuck waiting again and again, and are vocal about it so you'll hear from them here. But most of those waiting right now just don't want to pay full ticket for yesterday's pot roast.
Last edited: