I'm not sure if this is just a troll thread, but if you really care about an answer, here's my take:
Apple's marketing is often a bit over-the-top, but it sometimes holds at least
some truth*. In this case, you could almost call it "accurate",
if you see it relative to what kind of components the current (2009+) iMac design uses.
Take a fully spec'ed 27" iMac and you've got (relative to the 2011 iMac's release-date, of course):
- The fastest desktop CPU Intel makes (3.4ghz "Sandy Bride" Core i7, also known as the i7-2600). No way to go faster than that except using exotic server-grade CPUs (which would put the machine in a completely different price range).
- The fastest mobile graphics chip available. The only way to go from there would be using dual- or desktop-GPUs, which would require a major case redesign.
- Two Thunderbolt ports, the fastest connection available. Not that useful yet because it's still brand new, but it actually enables you to connect periphals faster than a Mac Pro with a FibreChannel card. Give it a year and more devices will be available, although primarily targeted at "pro"-audiences.
- A 27" screen with an IPS panel, which, while not ultra-high-end, is still much better than the vast majority of consumer monitors.
There's really not much else they could put into these machines (at least not while keeping the same form factor). Even if the iMac wasn't an all-in-one, it would still be an impressive machine. The fact that it
is an all-in-one makes it even more impressive.
I also think the pricing for the 27", is quite reasonable – especially by Apple's standards. I'd even go as far as calling the
base-model iMacs the best value-for-money Macs you can buy today.
As ususal though, the BTO options are
way overpriced, especially the RAM. The only advice I can give is to upgrade that yourself.
But to come back to your original question: There's not much else they could have given the iMac: Faster CPU? There is none. Faster GPU? There is none in that form-factor. More RAM? Not really possible. 8gb modules (= 32gb total) exist, but a full set costs more than a whole iMac right now. Maybe a 3TB hard-drive option and maybe USB3 via an extra chip, but that's about it. Everything else would either require a complete redesign of the machine (aka getting rid of the compact form-factor) or be way to expensive for the intended market. As for the optional SSD: It's sad that they don't offer a more modern SATA3 SSD, given the price of the BTO option, but we don't know if they kept the old (34nm-based) model simply because of better reliability. The newer 25nm-based SSDs are faster and cheaper, but they don't support as many write-cycles as the older chips. After all, Apple would actually make more money if they used a newer SSD (and sold it for the same price as the old one), so maybe they have their reasons for sticking to the old design.
* Being an engineer, I hate silly marketing claims and marketing speech in general.
