Next-Generation iMacs to See Price Cuts?

[gregorsamsa]

I have to loudly disagree here!

Yesterday, I was at Fry's Electronics and I saw a playback of a Blu-ray movie on a 20" LG Electronics W2053TQ 1600x900 LCD display fed from an HP Pavilion Elite d5200t with an ATI Radeon HD 4650 graphics card, with playback using PowerDVD 9 software. It was very sharp with excellent color details, to say the least; when the salesperson switched to a regular DVD the loss in detail is VERY visible, especially with a big loss in sharpness. If you can see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray clearly on a 20" widecreen monitor, you can see it even more vividly on a 24" monitor used by the higher-end iMacs. Remember, because you are working at a desktop computer you are sitting a LOT closer to the screen than a regular home theater setup, and as such even on a 20" monitor you can tell the superior sharpness of a Blu-ray disc.

The perceived differences are a subjective issue. You & some people can see a clear difference on even smaller screens, many others can't. Fact! It's been proven times over with double-blind trials showing that on screens much smaller than about 50", most people can't tell the difference between proper HD 1080p TVs showing Blu-ray, & relatively cheap, 1080i (interlaced) TVs, showing standard DVDs. AFAIC, unless you can afford & have room for a large HD TV, standard DVDs on 1080i TVs seem to provide a good enough viewing experience for many people.

FWIW, I don't want Blu-ray putting iMac prices up even further, but I think Apple should offer it only in the more expensive iMacs for those who want it, leaving it out of the cheaper iMacs for those who don't give a fig for it.

 

[QuantumLo0p]

IMO, if Apple continues to use low speed dual core chips instead of current speed quad core chips then they should lower prices.

 

[Anuba]

Something "consumer" should not be so expensive anyways. The current iMacs are worth probably around $700.

Exactly. If they're going to sell a desktop with underwhelming performance (the $1499 model only has a 9400M fer chrissakes!), light leaks, shifty viewing angles etc then price it accordingly and the complaints will stop. As long as they're asking up $1499-2199(!) for an iMac 24", it can and will be held to pro standards.

The original iMac G3 retailed for $1299 which was a fairly attractive price for consumers back then, at a time when there weren't any $400 netbooks or $500 entry-level desktops. That was the whole point of the iMac... entry-level switcher bait. Over time, it's been elevated to boutique status and today it's priced like a MacBook Pro.

 

[Master Chief]

The Nvidia GTX 285 peaks at 305W per card.

The ATi 4870 peaks at 385 W. The ATi 4890 peaks at equal or a bit less.

So, yes. If I have dual cards in, plus the CPU, accessories plugged in [RAID and more options] I'm going to need >= 1kW.

The Mac Pro 2009 Power is at 1KW and it can't push Dual ATi 4870 HDs.

It's one of the reasons you can have dual double wide high end GPGPUs on the Mac Pro.

/me ducks – Who was the first person to fry a MacPro 2009 PS?

 

[deconstruct60]

Fact! It's been proven times over with double-blind trials showing that on screens much smaller than about 50", most people can't tell the difference between proper HD 1080p TVs showing Blu-ray, & relatively cheap, 1080i (interlaced) TVs, showing standard DVDs.

Double blind on what content? You can have the mechanics of a double blind study but if the content is whacked, it is still an whacked experimental design.

Is this content shot with HD cameras scaled down for DVDs and then scaled back up the 1080i? Or is this shot with pre-HD cameras and scaled up vs. something shot / projected straight through with HD 1080p resolution?

If scale down and then back up somewhat likely to recover at least some of the separating HD content. What you need is a starting DVD source that has no HD lineage, if really talking no perceptible difference. (could throw in high end film lineage if the scale down and reverse have similar effects also. )

 

[JDW]

The iMac is the best computer in the world..

While I agree many aspects of the iMac are great (I have the 2009 24" 3.06GHz sitting on my desk at the moment), it is a stretch to call it the "best in the world." This is especially true in light of the uneven backlight problem. (Yes, there are indeed backlight issues even with the newest model iMacs. What is more worrying though is that this appears to affect ALL iMacs, not just a select few.)

 

[Shivetya]

It's hilarious to read people demanding Blu-Ray in the next iMac refresh.

Why?

Because if you're holding out on Apple giving you your first taste of Blu-Ray via your shiny new iMac, you're robbing yourself of a proper HD experience.

Perhaps you don't have an HD television and only have money for a new computer, I don't know. But a giant screen and a standalone player is the ONLY way to experience Blu-Ray.

I refuse to lower myself to sitting watching it on a computer. Even on a 32" HD television, you only begin to notice the difference between upscaled DVD via HDMI and Blu-Ray. Anything smaller, you're just using Blu-Ray for the sake of saying you have it.

Seriously. Blu-Ray (or HD/DVD for those who have it) was meant for real screens, not itty bitty computer screens. Then top it off with SOUND! Yeah, without a large screen and great sound you might as well be watching something you downloaded off the net.

 

[johnyboy]

new imac

Have been happy with my 20" imac for three years,,, looking forward to getting the 24" soon alsø,,,,, love it

john

 

[MacAndy74]

I'm not totally understanding the rumor of next-gen iMacs / Price Cut's clearly.

Are these next-gen iMac's going to have appreciable hardware updates? See: Apple iMac 2010 - What would you like to see changed? or are Apple most likely to leave the model's pretty much the same and just cut prices?

I'm in a quandary as I am also looking at buying an iMac very soon.

 

[whatever]

But is Apple GAINING market share? I don't think so. Maybe treading water, at best. And the recent market analysis posted on this site and others substantiates this fact. Win 7 IS a big deal to Apple, regardless of what you may think. I have it installed on my MBP and those of us that do, actually see how the gap has narrowed: we're not just drinking the Kool-aid. Apple is worried...and they should be. Apple is cutting prices. Apple has, essentially, made 10.6 a 'free' upgrade for OS-X systems, compared with Win 7's just announced pricing scheme. These are all the right moves in anticipation of the Win 7 marketing juggernaut that is going to hit in a few months.

Yes, Apple is gaining market share.

The assumption that you're making about Windows 7 is that people will rush out and buy new PCs just because it's out. However, many of the people who have reviewed Windows 7 are saying the same thing. It's breathing new life into older machines. So although MS will make money from it, don't be surprise if the PC mfgs out there only see a modest increase of business.

 

[Gasu E.]

The cost of Mac's have gone up across the board this year, so bringing the price down is definitely needed.

However, I wonder if they will really drop the price of iMacs? Their recent 'price drop' of the MacBook Pro 15" actually involved removing the dedicated graphics card. To get the same specs as the older model actually involved a price rise.

I have the same concern, that they will "cut" the price on the line overall by cheapening it. As I am looking to buy a (current) high end model, personally I am just fine with it if they drop the current entry model and move the other existing models down one price slot.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's breathing new life into older machines. So although MS will make money from it, don't be surprise if the PC mfgs out there only see a modest increase of business.

Many stories talk about businesses which have delayed many purchases - keeping their XP machines and "skipping" Vista.

If the economy continues its slow improvement, there will be a lot of large upgrades as businesses make the jump from XP to Win7.

Don't believe too much about the "new life into old machines". Win7 runs better on a Vista machine than Vista due to better memory utilization, but an old XP machine won't have enough memory or a good enough graphics card to run Win7 well. There are a lot of those systems that will be turned over in the next year.

If a system can't run Vista Aero today, replace it with a new system for Win7. If the system struggles to run Aero, then it might make sense to upgrade to Win7.

 

[raygungirl]

Don't believe too much about the "new life into old machines". Win7 runs better on a Vista machine than Vista due to better memory utilization, but an old XP machine won't have enough memory or a good enough graphics card to run Win7 well. There are a lot of those systems that will be turned over in the next year.

Isn't it possible to just keep Aero turned off on the older machines? It probably wouldn't ever get activated to begin with because the video card wouldn't be supported.

I thought I also heard that Windows 7 used less memory than Vista, but don't quote me on that.

 

[whatever]

Many stories talk about businesses which have delayed many purchases - keeping their XP machines and "skipping" Vista.

If the economy continues its slow improvement, there will be a lot of large upgrades as businesses make the jump from XP to Win7.

Don't believe too much about the "new life into old machines". Win7 runs better on a Vista machine than Vista due to better memory utilization, but an old XP machine won't have enough memory or a good enough graphics card to run Win7 well. There are a lot of those systems that will be turned over in the next year.

If a system can't run Vista Aero today, replace it with a new system for Win7.

Also your measurements of success are somewhat dated. The fact that Dell may sell more computers than Apple and have a larger market share does not mean that they're a more successful company.

If Apple is able to sell one computer for every 3 PCs sold and an Apple computer cost 3 times more than those PCs, then Apple is doing just as good.

Also how many businesses need improved video for work stuff. The corporate world will rapidly adopt Windows 7 if it's cheap and if the upgrade is painless.

 

[Goona]

Desktops are dead.

 

[Shiner]

wow people still use desktop ?

You guys do know that the iMac IS a laptop with a screen. ALL of the components are from a laptop except the stupid hard drive.

 

[AidenShaw]

Isn't it possible to just keep Aero turned off on the older machines? It probably wouldn't ever get activated to begin with because the video card wouldn't be supported.

Yes, but it's a waste to turn Aero off on Windows 7. Some of the most useful time savers in Windows 7 involve the taskbar and thumbnail previews. These are done with Aero, so you miss out on some very useful things if Aero is off.

Note that Microsoft has even enhanced RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) so that Aero can be supported even for remote sessions.

I thought I also heard that Windows 7 used less memory than Vista, but don't quote me on that.

That's what I meant by "better memory utilization". It still needs a hefty amount of memory compared to XP, though.

Desktops are dead.

Apple's certainly are...

 

[Shiner]

On the other hand the Cinema 30" is much thicker from the side than the iMac 24" is... in fact it's twice as thick as most 30" monitors. Not sure why they made it so bulky, especially given their obsession with thinness. But they could certainly fit the innards of one if not two iMacs inside the current 30".

I'm always ambivalent about Apple cutting prices. On one hand their prices are ludicrous and any cuts should be welcome, but on the other hand I know from their history that these price cuts are never done by just shrinking their extreme profit margin down to normal levels, it's usually done by cutting corners on the hardware while preserving the extreme profit margin. Given that they already use a lot of second rate, cheapo stuff in the iMacs and MBPs, where will they go? Will all new iMacs be made with refurbished components? Will they revert to USB 1.0 and remove firewire? Will they buy damaged/discarded components from cheapo brands like Acer and Packard Bell? Will they get a bargain deal on screens with dead pixels? Will they scavenge the lo-tech scrapyard for remaining 4200 RPM, 40 GB hard drives? It will take a lot of corner cutting to lower the prices while still preserving the profit margin at one trillion percent.

+1. I agree with all of your posts. People think apple places the best hardware into their laptops. My recent venture into the MBP 13" has really tainted my view on apple. I have owned different apple computers for 20 years. This most recent laptops quality is just horrible. I am so glad I kept my MBP 15" core duo. I just brought back my new MBP 13" and they asked my I am returning it. I had a list of things and also pointed out the better remove the name pro from that piece of crap machine.

 

[Ubuntu]

They had better cut the prices. I looked at another computer the other day, and while it has nothing on the iMac in terms of aesthetics, the specs were far better. I mean, 6GB RAM, a quad processor, terabyte HD (5400rpm) and far better graphics card with 1gb VRAM, all for £1000, including an average 24 inch monitor.

The £1800 iMac matches the HD, but nothing else (although it has a faster processor speed I think).

Ridiculous.

 

[windywoo]

The iMac would have a better quality screen, but even after factoring that into the cost you would still be around £500 richer for purchasing the PC.

 

[Goona]

Apple's certainly are...

Apparently not just Apple:

http://gizmodo.com/5301401/so-long-desktop-pc-you-suck?skyline=true&s=x

 

[Eidorian]

Apparently not just Apple:

http://gizmodo.com/5301401/so-long-desktop-pc-you-suck?skyline=true&s=x

Mobile computing entails too many sacrifices for cost and performance.

It's nice to have my Macbook but I can't really do much with it or expect much of it. I spent most of my time on my desktop. Now if Apple made a desktop computer worth buying I'd consider it.

 

[techfreak85]

as for the Desktop being dead, i hope Apple will bring it back.

 

[raygungirl]

In regards to desktops being dead... Maybe I've been looking at prices wrong, but I ordered an iMac instead of a Macbook/Macbook Pro because I could get more and pay less. Unlike a lot of students, I don't use my computer only as an email/music/internet/homework box, but rather for medium gaming, Photoshop/Illustrator/etc, video editing, website coding and designing, and lots and lots of multi-tasking.

Portability is all well and good, but my idea of "getting out of the office" means leaving my home computer room and going to the couch or the bedroom. I also think that when I go on a vacation, it's an excuse for me to finally get away from the computer, so having a laptop wouldn't be good for me.

Though it would be tempting, and nice, to get a small Macbook or MBP as an extension of my desktop, the only way I would completely forgo a desktop is if I had a monitor, mouse, and external speakers to plug the laptop into. But since I needed to replace everything but my external speakers, the 24" iMac (3.06GHz & ATI Radeon 4850) was the best deal for me. It was worth it for that screen alone.

Guess all I'm trying to say is... If you want to do any sort of graphics-intensive work or play, you're gonna pay up the backside to do it on a laptop. If you can afford it, awesome. But I can't, yet.

(Before anyone says anything: Yes, I know; I could have gotten a lot more for my money if I bought some chintzy desktop from Dell or something. But I waited 6 years to get a Mac, and I didn't say I bought the iMac because it was the cheapest thing available. It was just the cheapest Mac I could afford that met all my qualifications. )

 

[Bregalad]

No matter what Apple does, people on the MacForums iMac board will still complain about color gamut and light bleed. "This consumer Mac doesn't meet the standards of the professional machine I should've spent my money on. Oh noes!!!"

Just because I'm a "consumer" and not a "professional" doesn't change the fact that a $1499-$2299 computer shouldn't have uneven backlighting.

Those advocating Core i7 for the iMac really haven't done any research. The iMac is using a CPU that only draws about 35W. The Core i7 draws 130W. The iMac would need to be twice as thick to accommodate all the cooling requirements.

As forum threads for years have pointed out there is no desktop computer in Apple's lineup. For many that's enough to decry the entire lineup as a joke, but I prefer to see some nice niche computers and a huge gaping hole where the majority of desktop buyers should be.

The mini is a terrific little machine. I'm planning to buy one after Snow Leopard ships for my young children who currently suffer from terrible Flash performance at their favorite websites. Their current G4 tower is also annoyingly loud so I won't miss it.

The iMac is OK for the single threaded universe, but is woefully inadequate for the Snow Leopard future that's fast approaching. Problems like badly uneven backlighting, excessive gloss, high repair rates and nightmare procedures for basic repairs/upgrades keep me far away from them.

Apple promotes the iMac as a green choice, but there's nothing green about having to replace both your computer and display frequently. By virtue of having faster components and more upgrade options a true Mac desktop would last at least a year longer than an iMac and the separate display would last two Macs, but Apple thinks that would cost them a lot of sales so it ain't gonna happen.

The Mac Pro is built for a specific professional audience using some of the most expensive parts available. "The rest of us" aren't supposed to look at the Mac Pro and professionals aren't supposed to notice that they're being sold a $50 graphics card with their $2500+ machine.

For the past 5 years Apple has shown no interest in the desktop market and I don't expect that to change. For the past 5 years I've avoided giving Apple any of my money and I don't expect that to change either. The used Mac market should be able to provide my kids with adequate Flash performance and me with a replacement for my G5 tower.