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.
Memory in New $1099 iMac is Soldered and Not Upgradable
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was that logic is what drove me away from Apple long ago. While I am still a power user, love the UNIX side, use Terminal a lot, the fact upgrading hardware and the sometimes oversimplified operating system is to me, a negative. While I agree with your sentiment and making it easy to upgrade for folks that like that sort of thing shouldn't also be ignored. Is making it a few mm thinner that much of a reason where soldered in components is even necessary? Sure I will then max out the memory at time of order so don't have to deal with it later, but I don't want to spend the money on a mac pro just so i can get the expandability options later.
I understand Sir Jony Ives wants the look to be a certain way and in order to do so certain things are needed to be different, but the fact I can't change my own battery, can't buy a bigger hard drive is rather annoying. It won't stop me from buying Apple now, but if I had to nitpick and find a fault, that is the one.
I like customising my hardware and software to my liking and for the most part the Apple way is fine, but those smaller details I want to change too. Not just on my MacBook Pro, but my iPhone, iPad (it is why I jailbreak). I don't care if they added every tweak I use as a native feature, the lack of root access is why I want to jailbreak. I don't use it to pirate, I like having full control of the things I own.
Not surprisingly, many here would say that 128K is enough memory and that they'll be running Yosemite on it just fine.
Get a time machine?
Unfortunately, sometimes technology that allows these things is not available when you purchased your other computer. For instance, the Bluetooth 4.0 and BLE spec was only just ratified not long ago, and it enables things like iBeacon tech that the older protocols didn't support. This is a hardware issue. So unless you get a Bluetooth 4.0 antenna in your old computer, yeah.. it's not going to work.
Unfortunately, sometimes technology that allows these things is not available when you purchased your other computer. For instance, the Bluetooth 4.0 and BLE spec was only just ratified not long ago, and it enables things like iBeacon tech that the older protocols didn't support. This is a hardware issue. So unless you get a Bluetooth 4.0 antenna in your old computer, yeah.. it's not going to work.
No, no they don't.
No, no they don't. The average consumer doesn't want to tinker with their system. They want it to just work. Most people don't want to go through the hassle of finding what RAM works in their machine and all that crap. They use something for a while and then sell and get a new one. With time machine, it's stupid easy to move all my stuff to the new laptop. Then I sell the old one for almost what I paid for it.
Another issue with replacing RAM is you are inevitably left with the old RAM. Where does it go? In the trash probably. Same with hard drives and everything else you'd want to replace. So it's not an environmentally friend proposition. Better to keep the device "whole" and useful, maybe not in the capacity that you need... and then sell it to someone else when you upgrade.
This would be like saying that all consumers want to be able to upgrade their car, and then complain about European cars that make the engine unserviceable or make the engine cavity too small.
No, no they don't. The average consumer doesn't want to tinker with their system. They want it to just work. Most people don't want to go through the hassle of finding what RAM works in their machine and all that crap. They use something for a while and then sell and get a new one. With time machine, it's stupid easy to move all my stuff to the new laptop. Then I sell the old one for almost what I paid for it.
Another issue with replacing RAM is you are inevitably left with the old RAM. Where does it go? In the trash probably. Same with hard drives and everything else you'd want to replace. So it's not an environmentally friend proposition. Better to keep the device "whole" and useful, maybe not in the capacity that you need... and then sell it to someone else when you upgrade.
This would be like saying that all consumers want to be able to upgrade their car, and then complain about European cars that make the engine unserviceable or make the engine cavity too small.
It's the software...
Maybe you shouldn't be using Outlook and Chrome then?
Really it all depends on how the software is written. Also, OS X has made huge strides with things like memory compression. OS X can move things efficiently in and out of RAM and then compress/decompress it in place faster than it could access the RAM in the first place. So at some point it makes more sense to make the OS smarter and the software lighter to achieve the same goals. The OS could also hibernate apps that are not running, only allowing certain functions to remain active (similar to iOS). Mavericks and now Yosemite have these power and performance saving features.
I think it's lazy programming if Chrome is taking up 2 GB of RAM sitting still.
Also keep in mind that memory management in OS X is odd. It may allocate a ton of RAM to something but it's not being used. The system runs with access to as much RAM as possible but may not need it right away.
Maybe you shouldn't be using Outlook and Chrome then?
Really it all depends on how the software is written. Also, OS X has made huge strides with things like memory compression. OS X can move things efficiently in and out of RAM and then compress/decompress it in place faster than it could access the RAM in the first place. So at some point it makes more sense to make the OS smarter and the software lighter to achieve the same goals. The OS could also hibernate apps that are not running, only allowing certain functions to remain active (similar to iOS). Mavericks and now Yosemite have these power and performance saving features.
I think it's lazy programming if Chrome is taking up 2 GB of RAM sitting still.
Also keep in mind that memory management in OS X is odd. It may allocate a ton of RAM to something but it's not being used. The system runs with access to as much RAM as possible but may not need it right away.
This move was not well thought out by Apple...
IMHO, this is a bad mistake on Apple's part. Aside from the loooooooong overdue refreshed MacMini STILL not being released, this "low end" iMac is a low move for Apple.
They have a golden opportunity - at a time when computer sales overall have stagnated; even Apple's own computer sales have slowed. They have been making money hand over fist over the last decade with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, AppStore, etc.
They want as many people to come into the entire Apple ecosystem. They could easily make serious advances in that direction by cutting the prices and upping the specs of their computers since they are such a small portion of the company's overall revenues (which can easily be offset by all the things that currently bring in the vast amount of their revenues).
It would bring so many more people to the Apple ecosystem (on two fronts: iOS at one end, OSX at the other end), and in the process put another nail in the coffin of the Windows-based PC.
Instead, with THIS non-upgradeable so-called "entry-level" item at $1099 (???), the vast majority of those potential new Mac owners who are ripe for the picking will look at that $500 Dell and say, "No contest."
This move by Apple is STUPID. *smh*
IMHO, this is a bad mistake on Apple's part. Aside from the loooooooong overdue refreshed MacMini STILL not being released, this "low end" iMac is a low move for Apple.
They have a golden opportunity - at a time when computer sales overall have stagnated; even Apple's own computer sales have slowed. They have been making money hand over fist over the last decade with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, AppStore, etc.
They want as many people to come into the entire Apple ecosystem. They could easily make serious advances in that direction by cutting the prices and upping the specs of their computers since they are such a small portion of the company's overall revenues (which can easily be offset by all the things that currently bring in the vast amount of their revenues).
It would bring so many more people to the Apple ecosystem (on two fronts: iOS at one end, OSX at the other end), and in the process put another nail in the coffin of the Windows-based PC.
Instead, with THIS non-upgradeable so-called "entry-level" item at $1099 (???), the vast majority of those potential new Mac owners who are ripe for the picking will look at that $500 Dell and say, "No contest."
This move by Apple is STUPID. *smh*
Apple is becoming just another company. It's been so sad to watch Apple decline. I used to love going to MacRumors. Now I see it as just another news site with plenty of bad news.
This sets a very nasty precedent, not just with 21.5" iMacs, but with iMacs in general. The RAM in the 21.5" iMac not being user-serviceable was really bad to begin with. Being integrated into the MLB is way bad. It's bad enough that it is already this way with the retina MacBook Pro. I suppose it's not all that much of a stretch for it to be this way with the 21.5" iMac, but it will be seriously bad if it extends to the 27" iMac. Also not a fan of the MacBook Air-style ULV processor in place of what is typically in a 21.5" iMac.
Really, this is in essence why I think the iMac is their worst Mac and the worst deal for consumers; you are robbed of choice and sacrificed functionality in the name of form. (Because does it really need to be THAT much thinner? Does it really kill your mojo THAT much that you need your all-in-one to be even thinner?) Congratulations, you have a prettier computer that does a whole lot less and lasts a substantially shorter time because of it!
Why this makes sense
After reading several posts who insist that Apple is "screwing the consumer" I felt like I had to chime in. You really have to define the word "Consumer" in order to understand from a business perspective why this makes sense. A customer who just buys one PC is only part of the overall demographic.
There was someone who said that they were purchasing the new machines en mass for a lab. When you think about how deeply rooted Macs are in education this makes sense to me. A $200 price reduction x 30 machines in a lab represents a savings of $6000.00. (This savings is also enhanced by overall power / outlet consumption needed as you need one outlet to run an iMac)
Then you consider that a lab (or any entity buying multiple machines) would likely lease, not purchase these machines. Most leases on technology average 3 years, so they would replace the machines every 3 years as opposed to upgrading them anyhow.
Finally for the home consmer who is just buying the iMac. The average joe/josephine will browse the web, maybe run a few spreasheets for their home finances, and send email. This machine should be able to handle these tasks for years to come without a RAM upgrade anyhow. My 2009 iMac with a core 2 duo is still running strong for these items without an issue.
Rest assured this decision was supported with data likely measuring trends of consumers over several years, which % of them were buying the low end machines v/s how many hit the genius bar for an updgrade, and consumer feedback demanding a low cost computer.
I don't expect my post to stop anyone from complaining, just trying to challenge conventional wisdom that Apple's only customers are folks heading into the retail shop and bringing the units home.
Enjoy!
After reading several posts who insist that Apple is "screwing the consumer" I felt like I had to chime in. You really have to define the word "Consumer" in order to understand from a business perspective why this makes sense. A customer who just buys one PC is only part of the overall demographic.
There was someone who said that they were purchasing the new machines en mass for a lab. When you think about how deeply rooted Macs are in education this makes sense to me. A $200 price reduction x 30 machines in a lab represents a savings of $6000.00. (This savings is also enhanced by overall power / outlet consumption needed as you need one outlet to run an iMac)
Then you consider that a lab (or any entity buying multiple machines) would likely lease, not purchase these machines. Most leases on technology average 3 years, so they would replace the machines every 3 years as opposed to upgrading them anyhow.
Finally for the home consmer who is just buying the iMac. The average joe/josephine will browse the web, maybe run a few spreasheets for their home finances, and send email. This machine should be able to handle these tasks for years to come without a RAM upgrade anyhow. My 2009 iMac with a core 2 duo is still running strong for these items without an issue.
Rest assured this decision was supported with data likely measuring trends of consumers over several years, which % of them were buying the low end machines v/s how many hit the genius bar for an updgrade, and consumer feedback demanding a low cost computer.
I don't expect my post to stop anyone from complaining, just trying to challenge conventional wisdom that Apple's only customers are folks heading into the retail shop and bringing the units home.
Enjoy!Sorry, missed a word out. That should say 'as soon as'.
----------
Not sure I swallow that. Did Apple not use draft wifi standards before they were fully ratified?
Remember the original Airdrop where only certain macs could use it as they came with the right wifi card ..that was until a terminal hack made it work on my 1,1.
Apple are full of it. Love their products but they are charlatans.
the moment I saw this article I imagined Tim Cook going on stage shouting:
"PROPRIETARY; PROPRIETARY; PROPRIETARY: PROPRIETARY......SOLDERED; SOLDERED; SOLDERED....FRAGMENTATION; FRAGMENTATION; FRAGMENTATION" and the audience starts joining in.....
"PROPRIETARY; PROPRIETARY; PROPRIETARY: PROPRIETARY......SOLDERED; SOLDERED; SOLDERED....FRAGMENTATION; FRAGMENTATION; FRAGMENTATION" and the audience starts joining in.....
In what universe would you have ever upgraded the RAM on a 21.5" Mac before this? You realize that it's a very tedious process that requires the machine be cut open with a knife, and adhesive being replaced?
It's sad that all that experience has taught you nothing, considering 4GB has done well since Lion 4 years ago. They're still selling 4GB machines by the buttload.
----------
If by pessimistic you mean, a grownup. It's business and you're crying over it. I bet you're repulsed by this action but deep down inside you know consumers will gobble it up and prove you wrong.
Now that things are not upgradeable the used market is saturated with products that just don't cut it! Used Macs are depreciating much faster now because most current macs are not really upgradeable. Just look at all the 4 Gb macbook airs and 8 Gb macbook pros in the refurb store. the higher Ram configs are always in short supply.
If you feel bad about ram being thrown away after upgrade you should not buy an imac. The humanity if the logic board breaks and its not cost effective to replace. you throw out a case , display , powers supply ect! Plus your new iMac would come with another Mouse and keyboard more waste! I think building a PC might be best for you
People really don't understand the target market.
Its like complaining about the MacMini because it doesn't come with a display.
Its like complaining about the MacMini because it doesn't come with a display.
That's why you have AASPs. Take it there, they tell you $150 upgrade and it'll be a whole lot faster. No need to buy and sell, transfer files, or spend $1,000 more to get a new computer. No tech knowledge needed.
The problem people are having is that it is setting a precedent for the iMac lineup (or potentially).
They have moved to a new design and build paradigm which is limiting and sets up the iMac's to become even more and more proprietary in nature.
And it is not being done for anything other than profit margins.
There's no thermal reason in the iMac sized device to need to go all in one soldered ULV.
There's no power constraint like in laptop devices.
There's no significant heating constraint like the mini or laptops as you can easily fit adequate and quiet cooling for 65w (heck probably even 125w) parts in the iMac.
you have more than enough space still in the trimmed down thin iMac's of today to fit in SODIMM slots and user upgradability in SSD's and RAM.
The exclusive, only reason apple is moving in this direction is cost cutting and profit margin increases. And not even well done. Moving to these ULV all in one parts isn't even the cheapest move. As you make things smaller and smaller, the costs tend to raise. They could have taken the existing iMac and thrown in a 65w i3, or even lower clocked i5 that would have likely been more affordable than moving to the ULV's.
isntead, they're putting in a severely crippled ULV part (compared to what CAN be fit inside)
it just ... stinks. it smells funny. it sets off a lil flag in my head that makes me question the direction that Apple might be taking in the future.
They have moved to a new design and build paradigm which is limiting and sets up the iMac's to become even more and more proprietary in nature.
And it is not being done for anything other than profit margins.
There's no thermal reason in the iMac sized device to need to go all in one soldered ULV.
There's no power constraint like in laptop devices.
There's no significant heating constraint like the mini or laptops as you can easily fit adequate and quiet cooling for 65w (heck probably even 125w) parts in the iMac.
you have more than enough space still in the trimmed down thin iMac's of today to fit in SODIMM slots and user upgradability in SSD's and RAM.
The exclusive, only reason apple is moving in this direction is cost cutting and profit margin increases. And not even well done. Moving to these ULV all in one parts isn't even the cheapest move. As you make things smaller and smaller, the costs tend to raise. They could have taken the existing iMac and thrown in a 65w i3, or even lower clocked i5 that would have likely been more affordable than moving to the ULV's.
isntead, they're putting in a severely crippled ULV part (compared to what CAN be fit inside)
it just ... stinks. it smells funny. it sets off a lil flag in my head that makes me question the direction that Apple might be taking in the future.
People are pretending that they can actually upgrade the RAM if it was not soldered. Seriously, do you want to open up the iMac? Can you even do it? Soldered or not, it's irrelevant when in order to access it, user has to gut the whole Mac. Do people here only have Mac Pros and PC desktops? I mean come on. The hard-drives on iMacs, the component that is more likely to fail, has not been user accessible for ages, yet people have no complaints. Same thing with the Macbooks. Now suddenly this is an outrage?
Complaining about this is like complaining that the iPhone's RAM is soldered. And if you want a computer that you can upgrade the individual parts, why are you even complaining about the iMac when you can still buy regular tower PCs?
Complaining about this is like complaining that the iPhone's RAM is soldered. And if you want a computer that you can upgrade the individual parts, why are you even complaining about the iMac when you can still buy regular tower PCs?
My fiancée had ram go bad in her MacBook pro and it was outside the standard one-year warranty. If it had been the retina model, it would have required a motherboard swap. Out of warranty that is $300 minimum -- probably more like $700-$800 -- and will take longer to get back since it's more labor intensive. This was the supposedly premium RAM that apple installed at the factory (in reality, just regular old Samsung RAM).
I guess this move is inline with the fact that the iMac is marketed as an "all-in-one" which somewhat implies a certain restrictiveness to it, but many users still like to have the option and ability to perform upgrades or replacements over time - the latter being a key one, I believe. Sure, maybe some users may not want to or have a need to upgrade their RAM, HDD, etc. down the road, but what if a component fails? If RAM gets corrupted somehow or a HDD fails it's nice to be able to replace it yourself without having to buy a whole new machine. Same with upgrading. Over time components such as RAM become more affordable, and not everyone can afford to max out a machine right off the bat, but are willing and able to do so down the road. But I suppose this is all Apple's m.o. - make replacing/upgrading components not an option so it's either stay with what you have or buy a new machine entirely.
I'm curious how this new offering will align with not only future iMac plans i.e. the retina models in terms of price points and functionality, but also with Apple's plans for the Mac Mini. Guess we'll have a better idea of the former if nothing else later this year once Yosemite is out (being that there seems to be hints of retina iMacs in its guts.)
I'm curious how this new offering will align with not only future iMac plans i.e. the retina models in terms of price points and functionality, but also with Apple's plans for the Mac Mini. Guess we'll have a better idea of the former if nothing else later this year once Yosemite is out (being that there seems to be hints of retina iMacs in its guts.)
Does that matter? If you have the RAM, do you want them unused, or do you want the OS to intelligently utilize them as much as possible for caches and whatnot? I have a Macbook Air with 4GB of RAM and Mavericks, and I can run multiple instances of MS Word, Powerpoint, Safari browser, etc with no hint of slowing down. I rather have an OS with intelligent RAM management that utilize all resources so everything is transparent to me as a user.
----------
So, where were the outrage when the first iMac was introduced, where the hard-drive is not readily user accessible? And NOW people are outraged about soldered RAM? Come on.