Any word on how well the rMacs are selling? The price point is a bit high, so I wonder if consumers are balking a little.
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.
How well are the Retina Macs selling?
- Thread starter senseless
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's actually not a consumer iMac as much as it is a graphic content creator iMac so I wouldn't expect it to sell in quantities like the standard iMacs have.
There seemed to be an initial hoopla over it but eventually reality sets in and the more price conscious buyers give it a critical one over compared to other options for basic computing needs.
We have no official numbers and will probably never get any, but it seems that Apple at the beginning really sold out. When the Retina iMac came out, the delivery date was 3-5 days and after a couple of days it went up to three weeks. Of course we do not know how many iMacs were produced, so we cannot really understand what sold out in this case means, but it looks as if it exceeded Apple's expectations.
How do you figure? The Retina iMac retails for less than many monitors of equivalent quality. That's monitors, not entire all-in-one computers.
Sure, you can get "a" computer for less. But nothing, nothing comparable.
Although I bought mine primarily for photography in mind, the reality is I find it amazing for general computing too. The clarity of text and the high screen resolution make for a much faster workflow when working with documents, something I never expected.
It could easily be sold on that alone for people who do have general computing needs.
Re the price, I compared the standard imac but with the specification improved to as close to the retinas as I could and the price isn't that much different then.
It could easily be sold on that alone for people who do have general computing needs.
Re the price, I compared the standard imac but with the specification improved to as close to the retinas as I could and the price isn't that much different then.
Pretty much this. Although, I primarily use Sublime, it's nice having Dash on the side with web browsers open.
I don't mean it's not worth it. I just wonder if a lot of consumers are willing to spend $2500- $3500 for a desktop computer. Especially if they already have an iMac built in the last 5 years.
The iMac 5K doesn't seem to be aimed at consumers. It is aimed at video/photo professionals (and enthusiasts).
I got one for christmas and wondered why wife wife spent so much as I have a mid 2011 21.5 inch quad core i5, but now i wonder how I ever lived without it. My 2011 looks like an Atari next to the Rimac. It's certainly a nice "treat" for me but I agree the price may take a while for most to overcome.
Sure. The computer market is like any other, such as automobiles. There are high-end/high-performance marques, and low-end, crapmobile marques.
Apple dominates the former and lets the others battle for scraps among the latter.
It's a business strategy, and a good one.
It depends on how you define a 'consumer'. For someone that works with a lot of text on daily basis (scientists, writers, journalists etc.) the improvement in the quality of life is quite significant. And $2500 is what, $70 per month? That is basically what an average user pays for a mobile connection. Not a big deal compared to other expenses we have in our daily life.
P.S. I think what holds the iMac sales back the most would be the fact that is a desktop. For many people, laptops are just more practical. I don't think that I personally will ever get a desktop again — the only thing it does better than my rMBP is gaming. And that is a weak justification for a purchase in my book.
I was pointing at how Apple sees the iMac 5K All their advertisement is geared towards video/photo professionals and nobody else.
Also, 2500$ is quite a lot if you compare it to the non-retina version. The only reason to spent the extra money on the retina version is that display. It really does make all the difference with photos and video. Which is why I got one The difference with text isn't that big compared to the non-retina version. Some fonts are not that different, others are extremely thin and some are much nicer. Very small fonts are easier to read but one should not be using small fonts since they are too stressful to ones eyes.
Btw, the average user in the USA might pay $70 for a mobile subscription but here in the Netherlands only business users and people who are married to their phone have such a subscription. Most users have one between 5 and 20 euro per month. The Netherlands is one of the most expensive countries when it comes to mobile subscriptions.
All their advertisement is geared towards video/photo professionals and nobody else.Also, 2500$ is quite a lot if you compare it to the non-retina version. The only reason to spent the extra money on the retina version is that display. It really does make all the difference with photos and video. Which is why I got one
The difference with text isn't that big compared to the non-retina version. Some fonts are not that different, others are extremely thin and some are much nicer. Very small fonts are easier to read but one should not be using small fonts since they are too stressful to ones eyes.Btw, the average user in the USA might pay $70 for a mobile subscription but here in the Netherlands only business users and people who are married to their phone have such a subscription. Most users have one between 5 and 20 euro per month. The Netherlands is one of the most expensive countries when it comes to mobile subscriptions.
I'm about to buy an iMac in a few days and I am going for the retina. Not because of the display (for me that's just an added benefit), but because the price different really isn't that big.
The maxed out non-retina cost more or less the same as the base-retina and from what I can understand, they are more less equally fast... or maybe I missed something?
I don't think anyone will really notice in day-to-day operations unless you do something really really demanding where every bit of processing power counts. My rMBP '12 feels as snappy as the iMac 5K. But gaming, I can get significantly better resolution, quality, and FPS and that is noticeable. For gaming you'll see differences only in newer AMD optimised games. Might not seem much differences today but GTX 780m and R9 m295x are almost 3 generations apart and that would count soon when driver support is better and newer architectures are adopted by Game Devs. Used prices in a few years would be better than non-retina at least.
I think you are missing the fact that the retina iMac has to drive a 5K display and therefore has a bit better hardware. When you take that into consideration the base versions of both iMacs are equal (and so are the maxed out versions). In your case the non-retina maxed out iMac will be faster than the base retina iMac. The difference really only boils down to that display and it is a price difference of around 500 dollar/euro (max).
While an exact comparison is not possible, a good estimate is the Retina iMac carries a $300 price premium over the non-retina version with as close to equivalent as can be done ($1999 model with $200 Fusion drive upgrade). IMHO this is easily worth the extra expense.
I upgraded my 2009 27" i7 iMac (bought when it first came out) to the new Retina one. I primarily bought it for photography, but everything is sharper.
One bonus nobody has mentioned -- you can change screen resolutions and they are all sharp!
I upgraded my 2009 27" i7 iMac (bought when it first came out) to the new Retina one. I primarily bought it for photography, but everything is sharper.
One bonus nobody has mentioned -- you can change screen resolutions and they are all sharp!