M3 iMac Gains More Maximum Memory, Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3

[Velli]

Not for this price. There is a Lenovo that looks similar to imac can be had for like $800 (less than half) . Huge screen, does everything iMac does, and seems to come with free MS Office license and even a DVD-ROM!

Wow, a DVD drive?? I need to get one like right now!

Not sure about the other two, but my mother in law says, if it’s not OSX she doesn’t want one for free. Also, screen quality matters.

I HATE when people say “X does everything Y does”. It’s never true, and it disregards the feel of using a product completely. The value of a product can not be found in a feature list. It’s like saying a bowl of oatmeal will get you just as many calories as a plate of sushi.

Interestingly, many of the people who are not power users are more willing to spend more money on things other than core performance. Maybe because they don’t replace as often.

 

[Velli]

I don't think that's anyone's proposal to make you stop liking Apple. Who are us to prevent you to worship them in an altar if you feel like it?

That seems quite clear in our interactions.

BUT this is a forum, of course, which is a place where people exchange ideas. We're not here to kiss Apple's bottom line and always tell how amazing their products are – or else this would be a cult, not a discussion forum.

I’ve written several harsh complaints about Apple products and services, where I felt it was justified. Their redesign of the Apple Watch still annoys the hell out of me, and I just sold my AirPods Pro 2 because they kept falling out, and I found a pair that fits and sounds better (albeit with a few missing features).

I’m just objecting to complaints that I think is stupid. Such as saying Apple would make more money if they were less focused on profit.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I’m just objecting to complaints that I think is stupid. Such as saying Apple would make more money if they were less focused on profit.

There are several ways to maximize profit. The easiest is, a company may focus on having money in the short term, but that ends up costing money in the long term.

Under Tim Cook, I feel that he has "refined" some successes, but he's too afraid of taking larger risks, that could set up Apple as the large technological leader they once were. That costs money, and he's too averse on losing money.

I do recognize Apple Silicon is one of his boldest moves, but the issue is that he's not following up enough with moves to set Apple as a technological innovator. For example, Tim Cook has Apple Arcade under his watch, with the goal of setting Apple as a player in the videogame market. But it seems he doesn't want to spend money on exclusives, as this costs a lot of money.

Instead, Tim Cook wants developers to become marveled at the wonderful platform Apple Silicon is, and wants them to develop for metal without making it easy to develop cross-platform games for Windows. And due to sheer inertia, that is never going to happen.

Now, Apple is historically like that: they announce technologies and drop them all of a sudden, which makes developers distrustful. So, it's up for Tim Cook to break this cycle.

They have done some good work advancing DirectX12 support under WINE with their porting toolkit, but I don't feel it will be enough to attract developers.

The number of possibilities are huge – I've only listed the gaming market, but I see this trend everywhere on Apple: they want to expand on a particular sector, but don't want the commmitment that would take. Just see the iPad, or handheld PCs. Developing an interface that would make the iPad Pro TRULY "Pro" takes a lot of money, and Tim Cook doesn't want to invest millions or even a few billion dollars into research that threatens Apple's very large cash.

But if he doesn't innovate on those areas, someone else will, and it might be eventually too late for Apple to gain any relevant traction.

 

[Velli]

There are several ways to maximize profit. The easiest is, a company may focus on having money in the short term, but that ends up costing money in the long term.

Under Tim Cook, I feel that he has "refined" some successes, but he's too afraid of taking larger risks, that could set up Apple as the large technological leader they once were. That costs money, and he's too averse on losing money.

I do recognize Apple Silicon is one of his boldest moves, but the issue is that he's not following up enough with moves to set Apple as a technological innovator. For example, Tim Cook has Apple Arcade under his watch, with the goal of setting Apple as a player in the videogame market. But it seems he doesn't want to spend money on exclusives, as this costs a lot of money.

Instead, Tim Cook wants developers to become marveled at the wonderful platform Apple Silicon is, and wants them to develop for metal without making it easy to develop cross-platform games for Windows. And due to sheer inertia, that is never going to happen.

Now, Apple is historically like that: they announce technologies and drop them all of a sudden, which makes developers distrustful. So, it's up for Tim Cook to break this cycle.

They have done some good work advancing DirectX12 support under WINE with their porting toolkit, but I don't feel it will be enough to attract developers.

The number of possibilities are huge – I've only listed the gaming market, but I see this trend everywhere on Apple: they want to expand on a particular sector, but don't want the commmitment that would take. Just see the iPad, or handheld PCs. Developing an interface that would make the iPad Pro TRULY "Pro" takes a lot of money, and Tim Cook doesn't want to invest millions or even a few billion dollars into research that threatens Apple's very large cash.

But if he doesn't innovate on those areas, someone else will, and it might be eventually too late for Apple to gain any relevant traction.

How many years does Tim Cook need to show consistently great profits, before people will accept that his strategy is not short term oriented?

 

[Joe Dohn]

How many years does Tim Cook need to show consistently great profits, before people will accept that his strategy is not short term oriented?

Tim Cook has been running Apple since 2011. That's 12 years.
You might think 12 years is very impressive. To a degree, it is.

But here's the deal: most projects under his watch are a continuation of Steve Jobs' vision.
It's wonderful that he refined what was already working, but it also means that we don't have many products which are exclusively TIM COOK'S vision.

Maybe the Apple Pencil and the Apple Vision Pro?

So, what happens when Tim Cook needs to not only refine what he has, but to THINK DIFFERENT?

If you see how he runs the company, his actions show he's very conservative. Under those 12 years, he's definitely NOT the guy who will dare releasing an iPhone Pro under a candy pink color, or with a transparent shell – which could easily get tacky, but hey, it's a risk!

His actions have been great because Apple's original strategy was working, but on the flip side, he's losing the trend on cutting edge devices, e.g, foldable or the handheld PC format. Or even AI (we know how much Siri sucks in comparison with OpenAI).

 

[Velli]

Tim Cook has been running Apple since 2011. That's 12 years.
You might think 12 years is very impressive. To a degree, it is.

But here's the deal: most projects under his watch are a continuation of Steve Jobs' vision.
It's wonderful that he refined what was already working, but it also means that we don't have many products which are exclusively TIM COOK'S vision.

Maybe the Apple Pencil and the Apple Vision Pro?

So, what happens when Tim Cook needs to not only refine what he has, but to THINK DIFFERENT?

If you see how he runs the company, his actions show he's very conservative. Under those 12 years, he's definitely NOT the guy who will dare releasing an iPhone Pro under a candy pink color, or with a transparent shell – which could easily get tacky, but hey, it's a risk!

His actions have been great because Apple's original strategy was working, but on the flip side, he's losing the trend on cutting edge devices, e.g, foldable or the handheld PC format. Or even AI (we know how much Siri sucks in comparison with OpenAI).

None of us know or will ever know where the company would have been today with Steve Jobs still alive. It’s utterly irrelevant.

 

[Joe Dohn]

None of us know or will ever know where the company would have been today with Steve Jobs still alive. It’s utterly irrelevant.

That's not the point.

The point is that Tim Cook has been refining many of Job's projects and visions for those 12 years. Barring 1 or 2 projects, He doesn't like to take many risks. This worked to make Apple a big, well-oiled company, since many of Apple's strategies were sound to begin with, but it's also making Apple become a "safe" company that avoids the trends that they don't feel are safe.

In other words, they're playing it safe in many fields.

 

[Velli]

That's not the point.

The point is that Tim Cook has been refining many of Job's projects and visions for those 12 years. Barring 1 or 2 projects, He doesn't like to take many risks. This worked to make Apple a big, well-oiled company, since many of Apple's strategies were sound to begin with, but it's also making Apple become a "safe" company that avoids the trends that they don't feel are safe.

In other words, they're playing it safe in many fields.

Show me the new Steve Jobs that Tim should have hired, then. Where are these visionary products from the competitors, that are killing old, boring Apple? Criticizing Cook for not being Jobs is ridiculous. The fact that he is not Jobs, doesn't mean that he is handling the situation wrong. He can't bring Jobs back to life. Given that you don't have Jobs visions to work with, what would you have done differently? "Take more risks" is easy to say - exactly which products would you have had Apple introduce?

It's armchair quarterback, nothing else.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Show me the new Steve Jobs that Tim should have hired, then. Where are these visionary products from the competitors, that are killing old, boring Apple?

Oh, so you want a list? I'm feeling a bit lazy today, So, I'll just quote a few:

AI field – ChatGPT (doubles as an assistant; transcription service; image generation)
Foldable devices – Samsung Galaxy Z Flip; Motorola Razr;
Gaming tablets – Asus Flow
Handheld PCs – Asus ROG Ally; GDP Win; Steam Deck; Legion GO
Video content editors – DaVinci Resolve
AI photo correction – Google Pixel phones, with their TensorFlow AI technology, allowing you to easily remove objects and change people faces

Now, none of those devices are perfect, but they sure are more interesting and taking more risks than Apple in their fields!

Criticizing Cook for not being Jobs is ridiculous. The fact that he is not Jobs, doesn't mean that he is handling the situation wrong. He can't bring Jobs back to life. Given that you don't have Jobs visions to work with.

Why do people tend to resort to ridiculous claims when they want to criticize someone on the Internet?

No one here ever wanted to criticize Tim Cook for not being Steve Jobs. That's ridiculous.
What I'm criticizing him for is, he doesn't take the necessary long-term risks for Apple to be a long-term innovator. None of his designs scream "Think Different", which was Apple's original motto and vision.

Just look at the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini. Boring gray / black colors, boring rectangles.
No one wants him to bring Jobs from the grave or that he becomes Jobs, but he should definitely take more risks and release a foldable device, or bolder iPhone / iPad colors, or releasing more exclusive games for MacOS. Anything in that regard. And no, convincing developers to release 1-2 games per year is not a long-term effort.

He doesn't need to be Steve Jobs to bring back the bold Apple of yesteryear. But being bold will probably not bring as much money as Apple makes now.

 

[Velli]

Oh, so you want a list? I'm feeling a bit lazy today, So, I'll just quote a few:

AI field – ChatGPT (doubles as an assistant; transcription service; image generation)
Foldable devices – Samsung Galaxy Z Flip; Motorola Razr;
Gaming tablets – Asus Flow
Handheld PCs – Asus ROG Ally; GDP Win; Steam Deck; Legion GO
Video content editors – DaVinci Resolve
AI photo correction – Google Pixel phones, with their TensorFlow AI technology, allowing you to easily remove objects and change people faces

Really?

AI - agree, Apple is behind the curve.
Foldables? I'll take a bet that in five years, they are still a niche, not a threat to iPhone. Innovative, yes. Visionary, no. It's just another way to do the same things. iPhone made you change the way you live your life (as did Apple Watch for me).
Gaming tables - yes, Jobs was all about gaming, right?
Handheld PC's - don't know them, but sounds an awful lot like gaming devices. What is the difference to "Gaming tablets"?. Nintendo was the visionary here, not Asus, Valve, or those other companies that I haven't even heard about. If you want to fault Cook for just flying on the wings of the first iPhone, all these devices are just modern Gameboys.
Video content editors - hardly a "visionary product", maybe in it's field, but hardly world-changing.
AI photo correction - that's an advance in a feature, hardly a visionary product. I don't follow progression of Android, but on my iPhone I can hold my finger on an object in a picture, and drag-and-drop it into e.g. a message. I'm not doing photo editing on my phone, so I don't know what the possibilities are.

Apple has plenty of visionary features in their products, even though there might not be that one world-changing product like the iPhone was (and none of your suggestions above comes even close). Also, a lot of Apple's visions right now isn't the products themselves. Carbon neutrality, like it or not, is a very big undertaking, and certainly visionary. The efforts to improve health and safety with Apple Watch, more than just putting a gadget on your arm, is visionary. Apple Silicon (which this thread is about), saying goodbye to Intel, is certainly risk-taking, and includes features just as innovative as your suggestions, such as dynamic caching. Hard focus on power per watt rather than ultimate performance is certainly visionary, because it's about more than just battery life.

You're clearly looking through very tinted glasses.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I like laptops. But 99% of the time I use it at the table. If I were to buy a Mac this year or next, should it be the m3 iMac for me? Is it enough for general use, editing videos, editing photos, consuming content and playing possible games?

If I were to buy it, I would buy it like this:
View attachment 2304655

Personally, I was expecting an M3 move after the a17 pro. Since Apple uses the base model even in the Macbook Pro, it means that the plain M3 is quite powerful.

I had a 27" monitor for a while before. It seemed too big. I think 24" is ideal.

I may not get it this year, but it will be my priority next year or when the opportunity arises. Although there may be a 14" MP for a similar price. I don't know.

Go with the laptop and just get a good monitor and docking setup. If you’re on Ethernet and have good peripherals you won’t notice the difference.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Handheld PC's - don't know them, but sounds an awful lot like gaming devices. What is the difference to "Gaming tablets"?.

The difference is that they fit in the palm of your hand (i.e, "hand-held"), but they're PCs, not consoles. This means they can do everything a large PC can. I.e, run Photoshop, AAA games, or even handling peripherals the large PCs do.

We've had pocket PCs for a long time now, of course; however, due to miniaturization and advancements in power efficiency, these devices can now function just like the big boys can, something impossible even 5-6 years ago.

AI - agree, Apple is behind the curve.
Foldables? I'll take a bet that in five years, they are still a niche, not a threat to iPhone. Innovative, yes. Visionary, no. It's just another way to do the same things. iPhone made you change the way you live your life (as did Apple Watch for me).
Gaming tables - yes, Jobs was all about gaming, right?
Handheld PC's - don't know them, but sounds an awful lot like gaming devices. What is the difference to "Gaming tablets"?. Nintendo was the visionary here, not Asus, Valve, or those other companies that I haven't even heard about. If you want to fault Cook for just flying on the wings of the first iPhone, all these devices are just modern Gameboys.
Video content editors - hardly a "visionary product", maybe in it's field, but hardly world-changing.
AI photo correction - that's an advance in a feature, hardly a visionary product. I don't follow progression of Android, but on my iPhone I can hold my finger on an object in a picture, and drag-and-drop it into e.g. a message. I'm not doing photo editing on my phone, so I don't know what the possibilities are.

The point is not being a threat or not a threat; if you consider something a threat, you're usually just REACTING to the environment. Instead, you want to be a trend-setter. Like Apple was with the iPod or the iPhone.

Maybe foldables will not be the next hot thing in 10 years, but that's the inherent risk of a trending strategy. It may bear fruit or not.

That's the same idea with AI. It could have been just a gimmick, but you'll never know if you take risks.

And that's the issue with Apple: they're TOO conservative at the moment.

 

[Velli]

The difference is that they fit in the palm of your hand (i.e, "hand-held"), but they're PCs, not consoles. This means they can do everything a large PC can. I.e, run Photoshop, AAA games, or even handling peripherals the large PCs do.

We've had pocket PCs for a long time now, of course; however, due to miniaturization and advancements in power efficiency, these devices can now function just like the big boys can, something impossible even 5-6 years ago.



The point is not being a threat or not a threat; if you consider something a threat, you're usually just REACTING to the environment. Instead, you want to be a trend-setter. Like Apple was with the iPod or the iPhone.

Maybe foldables will not be the next hot thing in 10 years, but that's the inherent risk of a trending strategy. It may bear fruit or not.

That's the same idea with AI. It could have been just a gimmick, but you'll never know if you take risks.

And that's the issue with Apple: they're TOO conservative at the moment.

I disagree that any of the above mentioned products are “trendsetters”. If they were launched by Apple, they would have been considered a massive flop.

Also, Apple didn’t fail to innovate just because they didn’t launch a refridgerator. Apple is and have always been selective.

Anyway, agree to disagree. EOD.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Also, Apple didn’t fail to innovate just because they didn’t launch a refridgerator. Apple is and have always been selective.

Of course they didn't fail to innovate because they didn't laugh a refrigerator or a car. They failed to innovate because they aren't taking many risks in general (all those products were just examples where they COULD have innovated).

 

[MacBH928]

Wow, a DVD drive?? I need to get one like right now!

DVD can be of benefit trust me, especially if it comes free with the device.

Not sure about the other two, but my mother in law says, if it’s not OSX she doesn’t want one for free. Also, screen quality matters.

I HATE when people say “X does everything Y does”. It’s never true, and it disregards the feel of using a product completely. The value of a product can not be found in a feature list. It’s like saying a bowl of oatmeal will get you just as many calories as a plate of sushi.

You are not wrong but people who "sparsely" usually do not care about this kind of details. Albeit I have to say OS X is much easier to use and maintain but are they willing to pay double the price for it?

Interestingly, many of the people who are not power users are more willing to spend more money on things other than core performance. Maybe because they don’t replace as often.

Actually maybe because they do not know any better. In each industry guys who do not know can't make the right pick, people who are expert can exactly point to which item to purchase for your specific needs.

Think in the tiles world, average joe can't tell if he needs ceramics, porcelain, granite , marble or else but if you ask an expert he can point you towards the biggest bang for your bucks and avoid overspending.

 

[Velli]

DVD can be of benefit trust me, especially if it comes free with the device.

Nothing is free.

You are not wrong but people who "sparsely" usually do not care about this kind of details. Albeit I have to say OS X is much easier to use and maintain but are they willing to pay double the price for it?

Apparently, yes - that's what they did (although you are making it sound like double the price just for OSX, it's the sum of all the parts).

Oh, and keep in mind: We are not talking about what the average person usually does. We are talking about the 10% at the top of the foodchain, who are the people Apple cares about. These people very much tend to care about the quality feel of products they buy, and are willing to spend extra on a good look and feel with the same or sometimes even worse performance. And they very often prefer simplicity over advanced featureset, which is likely a product of being aware of the cost of their own time. They simply have more money than time. Personally, I think that makes them the smart ones.

Actually maybe because they do not know any better. In each industry guys who do not know can't make the right pick, people who are expert can exactly point to which item to purchase for your specific needs.

Think in the tiles world, average joe can't tell if he needs ceramics, porcelain, granite , marble or else but if you ask an expert he can point you towards the biggest bang for your bucks and avoid overspending.

Not everyone aims for "biggest bang for the buck". Some are perfectly willing to "overspend" to avoid having to deal with figuring out what they "should" get. This is the market premium suppliers are aiming for. The problem with buying computers is that "experts" are very often power users who thinks normal people also are, or should be, power users. And very often weigh performance completely differently than "normal people". 99 out of a 100 so-called "experts" would sell my mother-in-law a faster computer with a ******** screen (she is a painter and mainly uses it to watch art stuff online, so screen quality matters). Power users tend to think that people would get a better experience by "just learning how to use it", and get a more complicated product with better performance.

"Bang for the buck" is overrated. Very often it is what tricks people into buying "good for the money" rather than "good for my use", which usually leads to upgrading/replacing a few years later. And makes people unhappy when the new shiny thing comes out that is the new "best bang for the buck" product. The strongest factor in product marketing is to induce the fear of owning the wrong product.

 

[MacBH928]

Nothing is free.

well you do get it for similar or lower price than the competition. So it does feel like a "free" addition. Won't you like to get a new keyboard+mouse similarly priced to competitors with "FREE" batteries?

Oh, and keep in mind: We are not talking about what the average person usually does. We are talking about the 10% at the top of the foodchain, who are the people Apple cares about. These people very much tend to care about the quality feel of products they buy, and are willing to spend extra on a good look and feel with the same or sometimes even worse performance. And they very often prefer simplicity over advanced featureset, which is likely a product of being aware of the cost of their own time. They simply have more money than time. Personally, I think that makes them the smart ones.

Well, yeah if that is your aim it makes sense but I still those people may want a laptop over a permanent desktop sitting on a table for long periods of time but to each his own.

The strongest factor in product marketing is to induce the fear of owning the wrong product.

that is a very good quote

 

[Abazigal]

Of course they didn't fail to innovate because they didn't laugh a refrigerator or a car. They failed to innovate because they aren't taking many risks in general (all those products were just examples where they COULD have innovated).

I feel it comes down to Apple viewing and defining innovation differently from other competitors.

That's the thing with these other companies like Samsung. They like to rush things out just so they can shout from the pulpit that they were the first to do something (and claim by association that they are innovative). Apple's approach most of the time is to keep things in the oven a bit longer, which some think is boring. As the saying goes, "Rome was not build in one day."

An example of meaningful innovation by Apple is how they leverage on AI to implement features like crash detection in their phones, or the ability to make satellite calls in areas with no reception. It's not something sexy that you can readily showcase in a YouTube video or crow about in a tech blog, but it has already been credited with saving lives, and making it work is by no means easy (how many companies have the resources to essentially bankroll their own satellite company?), not to mention the hardware and software integration needed to make this work at scale?

Conversely, when Samsung recalled their first galaxy fold right before it was due to be released, I didn't think "at least they were trying to be innovative by attempting something different, even if it didn't pan out in the end". I thought "this must be a company with severely dysfunctional management if a product with such a serious flaw could make it past QA and be deemed ready for sale to actual paying customers".

I believe it's more that Apple took a look at these technologies, and are deciding that they won't compete in these fields. For all we know, Apple could have a folding iPhone prototype in their labs right now, just that they decided against releasing it because they want to focus their energies on the Vision Pro. Or maybe the technology needed to make a folding iPhone that will last 4-6 years simply isn't there yet. Or maybe Apple just feels such a product won't sell. Who knows.

It's probably more accurate to say that Apple is being very intentional about the horses they want to back. They have decided to bet on wearables and mixed reality over folding displays, and more importantly, are willing to invest in making their bets a success. We see it in the formidable ecosystem Apple has built up over the last five years to give the Vision Pro a leg up when it gets released next year.

Time will prove that all the things Apple has elected not to do these past few years was out of foresight, not cowardice. Sometimes, the smartest move is really to not play right from the start.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

An example of meaningful innovation by Apple is how they leverage on AI to implement features like crash detection in their phones, or the ability to make satellite calls in areas with no reception. It's not something sexy that you can readily showcase in a YouTube video or crow about in a tech blog, but it has already been credited with saving lives, and making it work is by no means easy (how many companies have the resources to essentially bankroll their own satellite company?), not to mention the hardware and software integration needed to make this work at scale?

It didn't stop Apple giving it a go though ..

 

[Abazigal]

It didn't stop Apple giving it a go though ..

That is a very well-produced advertisement. I was completely unaware that it existed.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I feel it comes down to Apple viewing and defining innovation differently from other competitors.

That's the thing with these other companies like Samsung. They like to rush things out just so they can shout from the pulpit that they were the first to do something (and claim by association that they are innovative). Apple's approach most of the time is to keep things in the oven a bit longer, which some think is boring. As the saying goes, "Rome was not build in one day."

[...]

Time will prove that all the things Apple has elected not to do these past few years was out of foresight, not cowardice. Sometimes, the smartest move is really to not play right from the start.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your view. Not only have things like language models or handheld PCs proven to be incredibly useful (just look at the many things GPT can do, for example), but also Apple hasn't released many "bold" products in the past 12+ years. Apple Silicon was the boldest of them, but in general, I feel that Apple is afraid to take risks with bright colors or a bold new design, which they were known for in the past.

When I refreshed my iPhone, one of the reasons I bought a normal iPhone instead of a Pro iPhone was exactly because the normal phone line had bolder colors than the dull, gray colors in the Pro line.