iMac Review, iMac Software Update 1.0

[gregorsamsa]

Then you don't know business, especially a public business. His #1 priority is to the owners of the company (shareholders), then his customers. If it was to his customers he would just sell everything at cost which would benefit his customers and not his shareholders. You think doctors #1 priority is to their patients? It isn't. Their #1 priority is to their business and then to their patients. That is not to say that they will make bad decisions for their patients jsut to make money however decisions are made as far as treatment goes with profitability in mind. Second, by offering a $30 video card upgrade as an option the expense is much more than $30. There is inventory, tracking, accounting, manufacturing processes, testing, and a ton of other expenses that go with carrying more than one option.

I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

 

[Richardlol]

I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

I agree with you in principal, but in this case the monopoloy also equals control which equals - Mac hardware and software generally work well together.

I jumped to a Mac years ago out of frustration with trying to get things to work together on my Windows PC. Apps stomp all over each other, leak memory, new hardware installs cause all kinds of conflicts - I just wanted to be able to forget all about system interupts and port conflicts! So by limiting hardware variations and controlling OSX, the comuting environment on a Mac is much more predictable and makes me a happy customer. I'm willing to give up some amount of hardware and OS flexability for stability. The monopoly on OSX systems is not a bad thing in my mind.

 

[mikef07]

I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

Actually you ar wrong there as well. Investors come first, as in Investment capital, then usually products roll out, and a company may go public well before they achieve a profit. Investors invest on future potential. Potential comes first, investment comes second, customers come third, profits come 4th, and increased investment comes last. Once a profit is reached on a consistent basis then a company puts profit usually before customers because as a public company the pressure is on and usually the customer is moved to last, or close to it. You walk into a board meeting not one person in that meeting will say to Jobs "Why did you not give the option to get a better video card and take care of the customer?" They will be asking "What are you doing to increase profit and reduce expenses?" In fact they may be asking if they could have put a cheaper video card in and made more profit or if there could have been a higher price in the first place.

 

[jeffbax]

Here's my take on the gaming thing (coming from a former occasional gamer). When I bought my first iMac almost 5 years ago I gave up on the idea of gaming on my computer. The iMac is clearly not a gaming machine. With all the relatively cheap consoles on the market now I can't imagine why people get upset that their iMac isn't a gaming machine. If you're that into it, why wouldn't you want to play on a PlayStation or X-Box or whatever? (rhetorical question).

Because not all games were meant to be played on consoles.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a PC game. The sense of community, the controls, and customizability of your game is just not there on a console. This is the game I want most, and will put the most time into. I have a 360, and while its great, its not a multiplayer machine like a good PC is.

Maybe some day Apple will make the machine you gamers want. But, right now I don't think they do and I don't see the iMac becoming that. It just goes too far against its design objectives of being small, quiet, elegant and working flawlessly.

Peace,
Brian

See, I don't think it would be a overly large, loud, or ugly machine. Its perfectly possible to make a nice mid tower. I don't upgrade too much, my last PC lasted me about 4.5 years playing all kinds of games, and I upgraded the video only one time.

The iMacs barely last one year playing a new game acceptably and the new iMacs are dead out of the gate. They will not play Quake Wars worth a damn, which is what is so lame. I want to buy a Mac again so badly but its really quite difficult to justify the $2500 for a Mac Pro with a card that is from 2006!

There's no problem with paying a premium for a Mac, they are worth it, the problem is that there is a massive hole in the lineup that was made ever more apparent with the release of the new iMacs.

I'm tempted to go the hackintosh route which I definitely don't want to do but financially it might be the only thing I can do since my 1st gen iMac just got flooded.

mikef07, stop being such a tool. Seriously. Apple is not perfect and there are plenty of reasons to give them criticism over this. No complaints? Fine thats great, but stop bitching when others have perfectly valid reasons to be upset over this update or Apple's lineup.

 

[brian0526]

I can see how SJ might think this way, after all, with OS X Apple are basically a monopoly & all monopolies tend to exhibit arrogance towards their customers, not least because they can get away with it. But for most PC companies in direct competition with each other, customers are prioritized & given what they want, often at highly-competitive prices.

Be under no illusions here... if people had a choice of running OS X on generic PCs rather than being limited to Apple's hardware, SJ would soon start giving his customers a much higher priority than his shareholders, for eg,. giving us decent video cards in AIOs, consumer-priced midi-PCs, etc.

As things stand, if you want OS X, you have no choice but to buy from Apple & accept any hardware limitations accordingly. That's why Apple's profit margins per Mac sold far exceed that of all PC companies per PC sold. Fact is, most competitive companies can't afford to think along your lines. Usually, the customer comes first, profits roll in, then the shareholders invest more & profit accordingly, etc...

Maybe, people would choose generic PCs. Maybe not. Apple's hardware is superior to your run-in-the-mill generic PC manufacturer who exercises very little, if any quality control. I've heard people who work on PC and Macs say this time and time again.

But, you're right. OS X is Apple's HUGE competitive advantage and why should they take advantage of that. They'd be doing their shareholders a disservice if they did not. OTOH, if you look at the customer satisfaction and loyalty numbers Apple has I dare guess they'd blow any individual PC manufacturer away.

There are trade-offs with just about any decision in life. PCs are more prone to problems-one of the reasons is you can stick any card or harddrive or whatever into them. By tightly controlling their hardware, Apple eliminates a lot of potential problems. Many people are actually willing to pay more for this. As a former upgrader of my PC, it took me a while to get used to this when I switched almost 5 years ago. I still find it absurd that because I wanted a bigger HD in my new iMac I had to order it from Apple and could not pick it up from the Apple store (or order from Amazon). But, that's one of those quirks about Apple I just accept. I have both a PC and a Mac on my desk currently (and have had since I switched).

I don't think Apple limits choice because of arrogance or because they can get away with it. I think it's a strategic decision to limit potential problems.

Peace,
Brian

 

[mikef07]

Because not all games were meant to be played on consoles.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a PC game. The sense of community, the controls, and customizability of your game is just not there on a console. This is the game I want most, and will put the most time into. I have a 360, and while its great, its not a multiplayer machine like a good PC is.


See, I don't think it would be a overly large, loud, or ugly machine. Its perfectly possible to make a nice mid tower. I don't upgrade too much, my last PC lasted me about 4.5 years playing all kinds of games, and I upgraded the video only one time.

The iMacs barely last one year playing a new game acceptably and the new iMacs are dead out of the gate. They will not play Quake Wars worth a damn, which is what is so lame. I want to buy a Mac again so badly but its really quite difficult to justify the $2500 for a Mac Pro with a card that is from 2006!

There's no problem with paying a premium for a Mac, they are worth it, the problem is that there is a massive hole in the lineup that was made ever more apparent with the release of the new iMacs.

I'm tempted to go the hackintosh route which I definitely don't want to do but financially it might be the only thing I can do since my 1st gen iMac just got flooded.

mikef07, stop being such a tool. Seriously. Apple is not perfect and there are plenty of reasons to give them criticism over this. No complaints? Fine thats great, but stop bitching when others have perfectly valid reasons to be upset over this update or Apple's lineup.

Ok keep whining. You should go complain to BMW that there cars are too expensive and you want Honda prices. Or complain to Tiffany's that thei jewelry is twice the cost as other jewelry even though it is made out of the same thing. You want to play, you have to pay. If you can't afford it, get a better job. See when a company releases something I either accept it or I don't buy it. This is my first Apple. They released it, I was fine with the specs, I bought it. If I wanted to play games and that was my goal then I would have bought a computer that I was able to do so on. If you spent as much tim trying to make more money instead of whining you might be able to get that Mac Pro. IF you say you can afford it then go get one. Apple is a premium computer, you pay a premium price. There are people who complain and find excuses their whole life and there are others who accept the un-important things in life and move on.

 

[WannaGoMac]

I'm tempted to go the hackintosh route which I definitely don't want to do but financially it might be the only thing I can do since my 1st gen iMac just got flooded.

While you can build one that will be darn workable and close. Realize you will not have the Mac experience. Any upgrade/patch that comes out you will have to investigate to see if it breaks your hackintosh. They require significant effort to maintain even if you buy 95% supported hardware. Honestly, I think it not worth the risk and time and suggest you just buy Vista. Or if you like spending a LOT of time maintaining and building a computer, just get Linux as that will be much less difficult than maintaining a hackint0sh.

 

[jeffbax]

While you can build one that will be darn workable and close. Realize you will not have the Mac experience. Any upgrade/patch that comes out you will have to investigate to see if it breaks your hackintosh. They require significant effort to maintain even if you buy 95% supported hardware. Honestly, I think it not worth the risk and time and suggest you just buy Vista. Or if you like spending a LOT of time maintaining and building a computer, just get Linux as that will be much less difficult than maintaining a hackint0sh.

Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.

Ok keep whining. You should go complain to BMW that there cars are too expensive and you want Honda prices. Or complain to Tiffany's that thei jewelry is twice the cost as other jewelry even though it is made out of the same thing. You want to play, you have to pay. If you can't afford it, get a better job. See when a company releases something I either accept it or I don't buy it. This is my first Apple. They released it, I was fine with the specs, I bought it. If I wanted to play games and that was my goal then I would have bought a computer that I was able to do so on. If you spent as much tim trying to make more money instead of whining you might be able to get that Mac Pro. IF you say you can afford it then go get one. Apple is a premium computer, you pay a premium price. There are people who complain and find excuses their whole life and there are others who accept the un-important things in life and move on.

Yeah, ok. Apple's lineup is perfect. No gap, or room for improvement. Its good that they are ignoring a huge segment of the market who wants to buy their product. Yeah, you know exactly what Apple should do and that they are perfect.

 

[mikef07]

Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.
Yeah, ok. Apple's lineup is perfect. No gap, or room for improvement. Its good that they are ignoring a huge segment of the market who wants to buy their product. Yeah, you know exactly what Apple should do and that they are perfect.

Everything has room for improvement you moron. There are also costs associated with it. Honda can put a 500Hp engine in their car but THEY DONT WANT TO. If I had a tissue I would send you one so you would stop your crying. Perhaps you can go to www.midol.com and get some medicine.

 

[brian0526]

Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.
Yeah, ok. Apple's lineup is perfect. No gap, or room for improvement. Its good that they are ignoring a huge segment of the market who wants to buy their product. Yeah, you know exactly what Apple should do and that they are perfect.

Man, you guys need to chill. Yes, there is a hole in Apple's line-up. Yes, there is a gap that I wish they'd fill. Frankly, I'd probably buy a machine in that gap, given the option. I'd probably have upgraded my G4 iMac a couple of times, if I had had the option. But, as it was, it lasted me over 4 years. In computer years that's pretty darn good. I replaced my last PC after just over 3 years because the hard drive died on me and I didn't have time to wait to pull the data off of it and swap it out. PCs are so cheap I just decided to get a new one. $350 later I had me a new PC. But, the point is my PC actually lasted less time than my iMac.

But, this is an iMac thread and the iMac is NOT the machine to fill that gap. It meets its design criteria and it's a beautiful, functional machine that does what it's designed to do. It's not a hard-core gaming computer. For those of us who want to occasionally play Halo (I played the demo), it's fine. For Apple to make the iMac try to fill that hole would jeopardize the part of the market they're targeting with the iMac. People who want elegant simplicity.

Peace,
Brian

 

[WannaGoMac]

Yeah, I know the headache of buliding one, I just need a dual core machine with 2-4 GB ram and a 8600 GT or so video, and Apple is just nowhere in sight right now.

Me too! Believe me, I keep going back and forth on the hacktint0sh thing. In the end, when I think about all the planning i have to do just to build it, and then extrapolate the time I would use to maintain it -- ugh, i just can't do it.

Everything has room for improvement you moron.

Wow, nice response.

I have read these forums for a while now and I have come to a conclusion:

Many mac fans are like battered wives.

Constantly coming up with excuses for why Apple is really not being bad or is actually better.

Face facts, while the OS is clearly superior, the hardware is just not there for high demanding consumer. For Pro the Mac Pro is an incredible machine, and for normal email users the other Macs are fine. If you are in between, Apple Mac is not likely the best choice. Hmm, going to add that to my signature!

 

[jeffbax]

Man, you guys need to chill. Yes, there is a hole in Apple's line-up. Yes, there is a gap that I wish they'd fill. Frankly, I'd probably buy a machine in that gap, given the option. I'd probably have upgraded my G4 iMac a couple of times, if I had had the option. But, as it was, it lasted me over 4 years. In computer years that's pretty darn good. I replaced my last PC after just over 3 years because the hard drive died on me and I didn't have time to wait to pull the data off of it and swap it out. PCs are so cheap I just decided to get a new one. $350 later I had me a new PC. But, the point is my PC actually lasted less time than my iMac.

But, this is an iMac thread and the iMac is NOT the machine to fill that gap. It meets its design criteria and it's a beautiful, functional machine that does what it's designed to do. It's not a hard-core gaming computer. For those of us who want to occasionally play Halo (I played the demo), it's fine. For Apple to make the iMac try to fill that hole would jeopardize the part of the market they're targeting with the iMac. People who want elegant simplicity.

Peace,
Brian

Nobody is complaining its not a hard-core gamer machine, we are complaining that its not an any-gamer machine. Halo is from when 2004? Hardly a valid example of playing a game on the machine. Apple is parading EA and id Software but doesn't offer machines capable of playing them well. I imagine one of the reasons that EA's titles aren't out yet is because performance is awful. And there is nothing more "non-hardcore-gaming" than EA's titles like Harry Potter.

As for maintaining a PC, its not terribly difficult to have a PC last a long time, you just have to make sure you don't do anything stupid. But yeah, I want a Mac, I'm ready to pay the Apple tax... just give me a reasonable price and the ability to swap out a new video card

 

[WannaGoMac]

Nobody is complaining its not a hard-core gamer machine, we are complaining that its not an any-gamer machine. Halo is from when 2004? Hardly a valid example of playing a game on the machine. Apple is parading EA and id Software but doesn't offer machines capable of playing them well. I imagine one of the reasons that EA's titles aren't out yet is because performance is awful. And there is nothing more "non-hardcore-gaming" than EA's titles like Harry Potter.

As for maintaining a PC, its not terribly difficult to have a PC last a long time, you just have to make sure you don't do anything stupid. But yeah, I want a Mac, I'm ready to pay the Apple tax... just give me a reasonable price and the ability to swap out a new video card

I feel the exact same way. I have no prob with the Apple tax! I have a prob the way Apple hides the apple tax by selling older or slower equipment than what is current to hide the Apple tax.

 

[seashellz2]

My friend who works as an Apple Genius just completed their training in alMac screen removal - the glass plate is held on by magnets in the bezel, and requires a suction cup tool and special clean gloves to remove and handle.

Given the magnets, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard for a 3rd-party manufacturer to make a standard matte plastic screen of the same size with magnets in the same position as a replacement option for people who don't do glossy.

er...so if you take off the glass, what is behind it-the same soft LCD screen as in the previous models?

 

[soosy]

Time to give up defending Apple on this one guys... the gaming results are pretty bad:
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

Hopefully they'll add a BTO option in the coming months.

 

[gregorsamsa]

I agree with you in principal, but in this case the monopoloy also equals control which equals - Mac hardware and software generally work well together.

I jumped to a Mac years ago out of frustration with trying to get things to work together on my Windows PC. Apps stomp all over each other, leak memory, new hardware installs cause all kinds of conflicts - I just wanted to be able to forget all about system interupts and port conflicts! So by limiting hardware variations and controlling OSX, the comuting environment on a Mac is much more predictable and makes me a happy customer. I'm willing to give up some amount of hardware and OS flexability for stability. The monopoly on OSX systems is not a bad thing in my mind.

I do likewise for some of the same reasons, ie. the opposition stinks so it's far better to compromise on computer specs & get a Mac that's wonderfully integrated & not a pain to use. But, IMO, the monopoly aspect can never be entirely a good thing & usually means that the choice of products offered is quite limited. Bear in mind that the Mini might go after this latest update & there's no guarantee that Apple will replace it with a new headless Mac. Being a monopoly in supplying OS X, only Apple can get away with this type of behaviour in the entire computer industry without suffering the backlash of falling sales.

OTOH, if you look at the customer satisfaction and loyalty numbers Apple has I dare guess they'd blow any individual PC manufacturer away.

There are trade-offs with just about any decision in life. PCs are more prone to problems-one of the reasons is you can stick any card...into them. By tightly controlling their hardware, Apple eliminates a lot of potential problems. Many people are willing to pay more for this.

I don't think Apple limits choice because of arrogance or because they can get away with it. I think it's a strategic decision to limit potential problems.

I agree with most of that, but I seriously doubt Apple would blow away "any individual PC manufacturer" if that competition wasn't hindered with a bloated OS like Windows. Certainly not unless they offered customers greater choice in hardware. Fact is, despite the brilliance of OS X, PCs still far outsell Macs, even in the home.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Actually you ar wrong there as well. Investors come first, as in Investment capital, then usually products roll out, and a company may go public well before they achieve a profit. Investors invest on future potential. Potential comes first, investment comes second, customers come third, profits come 4th, and increased investment comes last. Once a profit is reached on a consistent basis then a company puts profit usually before customers because as a public company the pressure is on and usually the customer is moved to last, or close to it. You walk into a board meeting not one person in that meeting will say to Jobs "Why did you not give the option to get a better video card and take care of the customer?" They will be asking "What are you doing to increase profit and reduce expenses?" In fact they may be asking if they could have put a cheaper video card in and made more profit or if there could have been a higher price in the first place.

I still disagree &, without point-scoring, to some degree you undermine your own argument with your final sentence. I've never said shareholders aren't important, but I believe customer satisfaction is usually a priority in most cases in the computer industry.

All PC companies have shareholders, but that doesn't stop them from supplying their customers with generally better-specced computers at Mac-like prices. The reason why Apple gives us less RAM, weaker video cards, less choice, etc. has little to do with shareholders, but with Apple's unique position with OS X.

 

[jeffbax]

The results are in!

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

Last-gen 24" iMac with 7600 GT spanks the crap out of the new ones... it was a legit "mid-range" computer.

If only I could hunt one down today without...

 

[brycepunk]

I'm new here. Typing from my olde '99 iMac (333) that is still chugging along, though it can't do much with today's applications.

My question: Should I get this new iMac? I'm not into tweaking machines, don't have a clue what a GPU is and really don't care. I guess I may be part of the iMac target audience. I was when it came out and I bought this thing eight-plus years ago.
Do the people who have one reccomend it for a casual user who doesn't know sh*t from sh*t when it comes to computers?

Thanks.

 

[Eidorian]

I'm new here. Typing from my olde '99 iMac (333) that is still chugging along, though it can't do much with today's applications.

My question: Should I get this new iMac? I'm not into tweaking machines, don't have a clue what a GPU is and really don't care. I guess I may be part of the iMac target audience. I was when it came out and I bought this thing eight-plus years ago.
Do the people who have one reccomend it for a casual user who doesn't know sh*t from sh*t when it comes to computers?

Thanks.

I recommend the 2.4 GHz 20" model as a good balance between price and power.

 

[cdarlington1]

imac...

just bought a new imac a couple of weeks ago and the firewire ports were not working. they took it back, sent me another and the firewire ports on that one were also not working. called apple and they said it was a known problem and a firmware update would be coming out soon to fix it. this firmware upadate wasn't even for my imac or at least it's not showing up in software update. anyone else have any issues with the firewire ports? can't seem to get a straight answer out of apple as to when this will be fixed. i'm an editor and without the firewire ports it's a pretty useless machine at the moment...