This has been in the iMac's DNA from the start, and is definitely a major part of its continued appeal to consumers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NScX8-8Z1z0
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.
iMac. Why?
- Thread starter Rizzm
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This has been in the iMac's DNA from the start, and is definitely a major part of its continued appeal to consumers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NScX8-8Z1z0
Just my thoughts.
__________________
~ 2011 13" MBP ~ Apple TV ~ iPhone 4 ~
and a lot of people complains about the 13 MBP (signature)
A product typically gets killed off when the manufacturer is losing money in the continued production of the product. Apple is definitely NOT losing money with the iMac.
The average consumer does not need high end add-in graphics cards or the need to modify their system. I, for one, have been building computers for almost a decade including the use of crossfire, watercooling, overclocking, etc. The iMac has a place in the world and as much as I hate to say it, that place is larger than the demand for machines that can be configured after the fact.
If you really want a machine that can be adjusted this way, buy a used Mac Pro tower and upgrade that yourself. Otherwise, the iMac design is based around simplicity for the user.
At work, all I use is an iMac, keyboard, and magic mouse. Nice and clean.
The average consumer does not need high end add-in graphics cards or the need to modify their system. I, for one, have been building computers for almost a decade including the use of crossfire, watercooling, overclocking, etc. The iMac has a place in the world and as much as I hate to say it, that place is larger than the demand for machines that can be configured after the fact.
If you really want a machine that can be adjusted this way, buy a used Mac Pro tower and upgrade that yourself. Otherwise, the iMac design is based around simplicity for the user.
At work, all I use is an iMac, keyboard, and magic mouse. Nice and clean.
The ultimate quest for my next computer isn't based on how it looks. I realize this is a great selling point for the iMac though.
Sure, mobility video cards aren't the graphics horsepower that gamers feel they need. The thing about these macs are they're meant to have a core capability and be energy efficient at the same time.
There's one side of the spectrum that's maybe for the hardcore gaming with X-hundred watt power supply and there's devices like the mini, a minimalist solution with adequate capabilities. iMac fills a void somewhere in between.
I, myself, have a Dell XPS for pseudo-gaming and a macbook air for mobility. Once my Dell poops out, I'll be in the market for an iMac since it's gaming-capable and allows me to do my productivity.
Bottom line is that it's all preference. There's a device out there for anyone, whether it's made by Apple or not.
There's one side of the spectrum that's maybe for the hardcore gaming with X-hundred watt power supply and there's devices like the mini, a minimalist solution with adequate capabilities. iMac fills a void somewhere in between.
I, myself, have a Dell XPS for pseudo-gaming and a macbook air for mobility. Once my Dell poops out, I'll be in the market for an iMac since it's gaming-capable and allows me to do my productivity.
Bottom line is that it's all preference. There's a device out there for anyone, whether it's made by Apple or not.
I think that it is a mistake to just consider the iMac as total of it's components or a consumer only machine. Not does the iMac have a glorious display but it is an OS X machine as well, which is something a Windows machine never will be. The high end iMacs are often used by designers, web designers, photographers, some video editors, etc. The iMac really does cover a wide range of needs, everyone it seems other than serious professional video editors and dedicated gamers.
And in fact, it's a good bet that Apple's bean counters told them (for example in regard to the non-upgradability of the MBPr) that not only do most people NOT upgrade their computers, but even among the tech-savvy people who talk about upgrading and demand systems that can be upgraded, a significant number of them still don't end up doing so.
If this was 1999 and we all had beige boxes and the best option for the internet FOR THE MASSES was to spend $1200 on a fairly cheap Cyrix mobo, minimal RAM, a small HDD, a 17" CRT, and a reasonably functioning copy of W98SE with Netscape, I'd say the upgradability argument might still hold -- that motherboard is probably going to be good for about two CPU/RAM/HDD bumps and will probably need it every other year because of the box being such a piece of crap in general. That was the way to get six years of life out of a PC back then: upgrades. Now, you buy a 2007 iMac for that same $1200, and it still works in 2012. More to the point, you buy a $500 iPad, and you get four or so years out of it before it stops working with new iOS versions -- and who knows how many years in "legacy" mode running the terminus iOS version that it supports. No upgrades. No fuss. Much more of an appliance... FOR THE MASSES.
I have an early 2009 iMac. I've been itching for the 2012 iMac even though my current machine works fine -- it's just that it's been doing more than it should be asked to do, and it's finally time for it to be relegated to lighter duty as a POS lane at my business. I upgraded the RAM because it was trivial to do so, but anything further? It's not really worth the trouble. It would be like doing a van conversion or limo conversion on a 10-year-old vehicle. You're better off just buying a new van.
an imac will do pretty much anything most people will ask of it.
and there is 1 cable for power, the rest is wireless.
steve hated cables, so do i.
also... there is less and less software to push top end hardware these days. i remember the old days when you would upgrade from say, a TNT to a a TNT2 video card and gain massively in terms of a game going from being an unplayable pile of crap to something nice.
these days middle of the road is good enough unless you want to run in better than hdtv resolution and need every graphical detail on.
the game will play just fine and look good enough with far less power/cost/heat/noise.
and there is 1 cable for power, the rest is wireless.
steve hated cables, so do i.
also... there is less and less software to push top end hardware these days. i remember the old days when you would upgrade from say, a TNT to a a TNT2 video card and gain massively in terms of a game going from being an unplayable pile of crap to something nice.
these days middle of the road is good enough unless you want to run in better than hdtv resolution and need every graphical detail on.
the game will play just fine and look good enough with far less power/cost/heat/noise.
I could game just fine on the iMac, with all kinds of demanding titles. The mobility option of the iMac is faster than 80% of customer PCs out there anyway.
So many people seem to have one underlying issue with the iMac - Mobile Graphics (What we're really saying here is we can't play the games we're looking forward to) but the iMac isn't really *supposed* to be for gamers...
I can see the misconceptions with things like Game Centre coming in the future and the fact that studios have started porting their games to the OS platforms, but people need to remember that is them doing that, rather than Apple?
Don't get me wrong, I love a good game, but I buy an iMac, or Macbook, because it's what the industry I work in uses, because it's what my entire College and University education used and because for what I do, it really is the best hardware for the job (specifications aside, software can still be glitchy cross platform - Adobe *cough*)
It's basically a very simple question, do you want an iMac?
Apple seem to be doing pretty well for themselves regardless of what PC Manufacturers are doing, I'll change my mind when every major shopping centre in Europe has an HP/Dell specific store in it though, promise
(PS - As a designer I also think that Windows Metro UI is one of the most beautiful things out there as far as simple interfaces right now, so I'm no fanboy by any means, I recently wept as I had to say goodbye to my dying XPS Gaming Steed!)
I can see the misconceptions with things like Game Centre coming in the future and the fact that studios have started porting their games to the OS platforms, but people need to remember that is them doing that, rather than Apple?
Don't get me wrong, I love a good game, but I buy an iMac, or Macbook, because it's what the industry I work in uses, because it's what my entire College and University education used and because for what I do, it really is the best hardware for the job (specifications aside, software can still be glitchy cross platform - Adobe *cough*)
It's basically a very simple question, do you want an iMac?
Apple seem to be doing pretty well for themselves regardless of what PC Manufacturers are doing, I'll change my mind when every major shopping centre in Europe has an HP/Dell specific store in it though, promise
(PS - As a designer I also think that Windows Metro UI is one of the most beautiful things out there as far as simple interfaces right now, so I'm no fanboy by any means, I recently wept as I had to say goodbye to my dying XPS Gaming Steed!)
I want a computer with a beautiful screen, looks great on my desk, uses an operating system that doesn't require constant care and feeding, and runs the latest games at high settings at 60 FPS without melting. Why is this such an unreasonable demand?
(With the 7970m or 680M, I'll get my wish.)
It's not an unreasonable demand by any means, but again it comes down to things mentioned previously in this thread, and if gaming really is a priority, you should consider a separate gaming rig!
The demand is there, Apple are aware of it, and perhaps in time they will bring about more of a change to meet gamers demands, but gamers notoriously also want very upgradeable (by themselves) systems most of the time, which means that Apple would have to strip back on their aesthetic focus, the thing that makes them as desirable as they are to the *general* consumer market!
I'm pretty fickle though, if Apple started making ugly plastic machines with shorter lives just to cater for a market that is only a percentage of their target market, it would narrow the gap between them and their competitors in the PC world and I'd probably start looking at alternatives myself!
Not that they would
When I was younger, getting better frame rates on current games was a big concern for me. It's not so much anymore, but I still want current games to be playable and enjoyable. If anything, today's games look great without everything maxed out anyway. Diablo III looked great on my 2010 27" iMac with not everything maxed. Sure I had to use a lower resolution than native, and it slowed down a bit with tons of monsters on the screen, but it was definitely playable and I had a blast.
Part of me wants the iMac to die and the Mac Pro to take it's place with a lower cost. But I really like my iMac and how they pack so much into the monitor and eliminate the extra wires. I had a Dell with a desktop graphics card and my iMac spanked it. I know I can swap out the card but stupid Dell and cutting costs so my out of the box experience suffers. Too me, the iMac is the flagship Mac and not the new Macbook pro.
I feel the same way about the iMac - to me it is the flagship. However, it really isn't. The Macbooks are just so wildly popular. I'm just not in the market for a laptop.
Apple could really take a bite out of the windows OS marketshare if they allowed Dell or someone to produce a computer with OS X installed. But that is not their way, and honestly, I'm glad it's not.
My lack of desire to be a Windows administrator prevents this.
Before OS X, I was a Linux man.
"mobility" is just a word. Technically speaking it usually involves lower clock frequencies, lower consumption, and sometimes less shaders or cores. Any given "mobility" card usually correspond to a desktop card, putting aside the marketing trickery with the branding. I'm not sure there even are exceptions, mobility cards with no GPU/circuitry equivalent on the desktop?
So all in all, the label "mobility" does not point to a different league of cards, with distinct "inferior" GPUs, therefore "mobility" is just a word for lower memory/shader clocks and lower consumption. And since all is relative... a mobility card could be better than your two year old PC desktop card.
At the end of the day, the mobility card in the high end iMac is more than capable for playing the latest games at 2560. Unless you're one of those weird people who believe in "absolutes" like a "gaming rig" or "not playable if < 60 FPS".
One of the reasons I LOVE mobile graphics cards: They generate less heat and result in a quieter computer. One of the factors that adds to the "Mac experience".
I play WoW and Diablo III on my 2007 iMac with no problems. My husband plays them on a Mac Pro (yes, running OS X). Our friends with PCs have way more problems with crashes and such than we do - we're always having to wait for them to reboot. Yet my old iMac keeps chugging along. Of course I am looking forward to playing on my NEW iMac, whenever it comes out. In the meantime, my old iMac does just fine for gaming.