What will disappear next?

[Gloops]

The vast majority of mac owners aren't like the people on this site. They will never open their computer, they will never upgrade ram, they will never swap their hard drive. If those are major issues for you then you aren't in the target market of the iMac.

I'm not in the target market for an iMac, but unfortunately Apple don't make any other desktops of a similar spec and price, just the over the top Mac 'Pro'. Apple no longer consider their mid-range pro users.

I used to have a G4 PowerMac: expandable, powerful (at the time), but still easily affordable. When it started to age I upgraded the RAM, GPU and CPU with a Sonnet card and it carried on for another few years at little expense.

I've thought about switching to PC, but I've been using Macs since the 1990s and now I'm stuck in my ways - and I've got a bunch of expensive Mac OS design software that I'd have to replace.

 

[Nunt]

I wouldn't mind the non-upgradebility of imacs if they offered fair prices on the BTO components. But they don't. This means that they are just trying to squeeze money out of their consumers and push them towards obsolete technologies. The standard hard disk Apple is offering is the incredibly slow 5400rpm HDD. This is a real outrage.

They market the fusion drive like its the best of both worlds: plenty storage + speed and cheap. Well, cheap is relative. Paying $200 for a $90 128gb SSD doesn't sound cheap to me. Worst of all, prices of SSDs have dropped that you don't really need this "best of both worlds" solution. You can buy an aftermarket 512gb SSD for little over $200 now. So Apple charges the price of a 512gb SSD for a 128gb SSD.

Apple is intentionally limiting consumers. Not to provide them with a better product, not to make a great product that 'just works', but to force consumers to pay a lot of money for inferior hardware.

 

[scaredpoet]

As an aside, a modem can be used for things other than connectivity. I've used a modem to watch for incoming calls and to send the Caller-ID to a program. If the number is not on a whitelist, the program simply hangs up, all without me having to be disturbed by a ringing telephone.

First and foremost: Are you SURE you actually did this? Because analog Caller ID sends its data AFTER the first ring. So, no matter what, your copper-based landline phone would have to ring at least once for every call - thus "disturbing" you - before your modem could even know whether the call should be hung up on or allowed to continue ringing.

Anyway, ignoring this: While this very specialized, niche use is interesting, you ignore the fact that again, analog service is dwindling. In nearly all developed countries, analog service is a shrinking minority in favor of VoIP and wireless lines, where a USB POTS modem is useless. And in developing nations, analog POTS hasn't even truly established itself; cell service overtook it because it's easier to roll out.

Even the argument about analog service being more reliable is going out the window, because phone companies like Verizon and AT&T want it to die. AT&T wants it gone by 2020; Verizon's goal is 2016. Already, Verizon has abandoned parts of its analog phone network damaged by storms; once your phone line goes dead, they do everything they can to avoid repairing it. They'll even go so far as to fit a cellular base station to your home phone wiring... which by the way, doesn't work with analog modems.

You can't fully blame the phone companies, either though. No one makes switches for analog phone networks anymore. You have to buy used equipment, if you can find it. All new gear being made is focused on VoIP or wireless 3G/4G... languages your USB modem won't understand.

While I can respect that you want to claw on to a technology that hasn't had growth or advancement in over a decade, especially to use it for this really niche purpose, the fact remains: other technology has overtaken it. And blaming Apple solely for this isn't fair or accurate.

So, don't be disrespectful of a modem or other feature if you don't know how useful it just might be.

Of course, you can get exactly what you're doing right now - selectively rejecting phone calls based on a blacklist or whitelist - with any modern cell phone, and any decent VoIP provider offers that too. No USB modem required, and the phone doesn't have even ring once. The same actually is true of a lot of technology advancements. People have found better ways to do lots of things. Maintaining legacy interfaces just holds back these refinements.

And again, why is Apple getting all the blame? I challenge you to find a Firewire port or analog modem on any of the Windows "desktop/laptop replacement" ultrabooks and tablet hybrids that are being pushed by Microsoft now.

 

[capathy21]

Your issue with change is not with Apple, it is with the industry (and for that matter, what in this world doesn't evolve to some degree).

This!!

As many have stated throughout this thread, Apple designs what is best for the majority of their users and that is based on a ton of market research. This is 2014.

I am a college student and I am what you would consider an "average" user. I have not plugged into an ethernet connection in over 7 years. I have not had the need to use a optical drive in about 5 years. I have no use whatsoever for a firewire port nor have I ever. The list goes on but you get the point.

I am an "older college student" at 31. Most college students are a decade younger than me, and may have never even known a life without wifi. They are the iphone and ipad generation, and they are the future. They don't know a world with computers that are able to be upgraded, and they don't care.

They wouldn't have any interest in putting more ram or a new hard drive in their computer anymore than they would their iphone. These are the consumers that Apple and other technology companies are designing for. They want thin, fast, and attractive devices and they want them to just work.

As I stated, I am 31 and no one I know that is my age even uses these discussed features, younger people do not know what most of them are.

Desktop users are much more "traditional computer users" in the sense that they are familiar with how to upgrade their machine and such. Most of this newer generation that I referred to, are not desktop users. They use whatever device they have in their hand (whether it be an iphone, iPad, Android device or laptop), they have no interest in sitting at a desk to do what they can accomplish on the couch or at a Starbucks. Apple knows that the "traditional desktop users" are becoming fewer and fewer. It no longer behooves them to include things like ir ports, firewire etc when the majority of their consumers no longer use, or even know what these things are. It does however behoove them to make their desktops exactly like their notebooks (see the new "budget" iMac which is basically a Macbook Air) to save on manufacturing costs. It is a win win for Apple. They save a ton on manufacturing costs, and make a killing on up front upgrades like memory and ram (since it can't be upgraded later).

Mac's have always come at a premium cost. It's not like this is anything new. No one is forcing anyone to purchase a Mac. You know going in that if you do, and you want killer specs, you will pay a premium. It's free enterprise, don't like it? Take your money to another company. Apple knows that the majority of their consumers will be glad to purchase machines that cannot be upgraded, and that number will grow as the younger generation grows older.

I understand the frustration from traditional users that like to be able to upgrade their systems, but computers are no longer designed with them in mind. It's just how it is.

 

[joe-h2o]

More laughs are to be had in the iPhone forum where so many speculate on whatever new packaging the next model will have, but none question why new packaging must be had. The truth is that Apple must allow its fashion sensitive customers a means of showing the public that they've got the latest, most expensive hardware and not some older model.

I recall the cry and dismay among iPhone fashionistas when it was discovered that an iPhone could be had on a gasp prepaid plan. Why, now almost anyone could have an iPhone and not just the credit worthy! But Apple's useful idiots don't have to worry, for Apple will soon offer its iWatch which will cost fifty times as much as a cheap Casio (like mine -- gains 2 seconds per month). The Apple iWatch will sell like hotcakes because it can fulfill an intense need -- but that need has nothing to do with knowing the time of day.

Due to the overly sensitive nature of moderation on this site I can't call this out for what it is, except to say that the enormous straw man argument here demonstrates the poor quality of the OP's arguments.

----------

First and foremost: Are you SURE you actually did this? Because analog Caller ID sends its data AFTER the first ring. So, no matter what, your copper-based landline phone would have to ring at least once for every call - thus "disturbing" you - before your modem could even know whether the call should be hung up on or allowed to continue ringing.

Anyway, ignoring this: While this very specialized, niche use is interesting, you ignore the fact that again, analog service is dwindling. In nearly all developed countries, analog service is a shrinking minority in favor of VoIP and wireless lines, where a USB POTS modem is useless. And in developing nations, analog POTS hasn't even truly established itself; cell service overtook it because it's easier to roll out.

Even the argument about analog service being more reliable is going out the window, because phone companies like Verizon and AT&T want it to die. AT&T wants it gone by 2020; Verizon's goal is 2016. Already, Verizon has abandoned parts of its analog phone network damaged by storms; once your phone line goes dead, they do everything they can to avoid repairing it. They'll even go so far as to fit a cellular base station to your home phone wiring... which by the way, doesn't work with analog modems.

You can't fully blame the phone companies, either though. No one makes switches for analog phone networks anymore. You have to buy used equipment, if you can find it. All new gear being made is focused on VoIP or wireless 3G/4G... languages your USB modem won't understand.

While I can respect that you want to claw on to a technology that hasn't had growth or advancement in over a decade, especially to use it for this really niche purpose, the fact remains: other technology has overtaken it. And blaming Apple solely for this isn't fair or accurate.




Of course, you can get exactly what you're doing right now - selectively rejecting phone calls based on a blacklist or whitelist - with any modern cell phone, and any decent VoIP provider offers that too. No USB modem required, and the phone doesn't have even ring once. The same actually is true of a lot of technology advancements. People have found better ways to do lots of things. Maintaining legacy interfaces just holds back these refinements.

And again, why is Apple getting all the blame? I challenge you to find a Firewire port or analog modem on any of the Windows "desktop/laptop replacement" ultrabooks and tablet hybrids that are being pushed by Microsoft now.

Shush! You can't let something as silly as facts get in the way of his argument!

 

[Thermonuclear]

First and foremost: Are you SURE you actually did this? Because analog Caller ID sends its data AFTER the first ring. So, no matter what, your copper-based landline phone would have to ring at least once for every call - thus "disturbing" you - before your modem could even know whether the call should be hung up on or allowed to continue ringing.

Yes, I did it. The Caller ID data is sent between the first and second ring. Before Apple dropped support of its own USB modem, I was able to control the modem via the Hayes command set and get back its status and the calling number. I didn't hear the ring in my home office because I've silenced the ringer on the handset.

The phone is not mine, anyway. It is for my elderly parent who is blind, mobility impaired, and unable to use a cell phone. I need to monitor the line so that calls from relatives and medical providers can make it through while spammers are cut off.

As to what telephone companies want, well, I really don't give a crap. I've gone after them before via the PUC and I'll do it again if needed.

Cell phones may be nice for some, but are woefully inadequate for others. Try to think of others' needs before dismissing them as being unimportant.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The vast majority of mac owners aren't like the people on this site. They will never open their computer, they will never upgrade ram, they will never swap their hard drive. If those are major issues for you then you aren't in the target market of the iMac.

So true. But after 4 years those people ask someone like you or I how to speed up their computer without spending $2000 on a new one, and we have no issues with opening up a computer to upgrade memory or the hard drive.

 

[Thermonuclear]

I'm not in the target market for an iMac, but unfortunately Apple don't make any other desktops of a similar spec and price, just the over the top Mac 'Pro'. Apple no longer consider their mid-range pro users.

I used to have a G4 PowerMac: expandable, powerful (at the time), but still easily affordable. When it started to age I upgraded the RAM, GPU and CPU with a Sonnet card and it carried on for another few years at little expense.

I've thought about switching to PC, but I've been using Macs since the 1990s and now I'm stuck in my ways - and I've got a bunch of expensive Mac OS design software that I'd have to replace.

Apple would like to have the extra business, but they can't compete. That's why there are no more Apple QuickTime cameras, no more Apple ImageWriters or LaserWriters, no more Apple Xserve network storage arrays, and no more Apple Xserve rack mount computers. Apple has become like Rolex; nice equipment, but if forced to operate under average industry margins then would soon go bankrupt. This is why you will never see an xMac, a powerful, moderately priced box designed to be easily maintained and expanded by an end user.

Maybe the last great computer Apple made wasn't a Mac; it was the Apple IIgs and it did well without need of marketing hype.

Fortunately, while Apple has abandoned that class of savvy computer users who need power and expandability at a fair price, the rest of the industry has not. So I advise these folk to do what I've done: set up some Linux boxes using decent mix-n-match hardware and operate them remotely from a Mac if you still need some Apple features. I get raw CPU throughput far, far better on one of these boxes than I could get with a comparatively priced Mac Pro. Because a typical Debian Linux distribution (including but not limited to Ubuntu) already has plenty of handy applications, soon the Mac won't even be needed. Unless used interactively, these Linux boxes don't even need a monitor, keyboard, or mouse once they've been set up.

And with Linux you can still use your old Apple hardware even long after Apple has dropped all support. Yes, even PowerPC machines without a problem. And there are still hardy souls with ancient Apple 68k computers running Linux -- although that's not for me, I wouldn't deny others the opportunity.

It's real support, too. I've run the latest and best C++ development tool chain on Macs that Apple gave up on more than a decade ago. These program are as up-to-date as the latest Apple O/S, or even more so. Updating and other administration is done remotely and automatically.

If your Mac-specific program doesn't have a free Linux work-alike, check again for it might have gotten one in the past month. If not, you could always try a Kickstarter campaign to make one happen.

 

[mmomega]

I think the better question would be why would we still want to use a VGA monitor in 2014? VGA for goodness sakes. Why do we feel the need to still screw our monitor cables in?

 

[Thermonuclear]

I think the better question would be why would we still want to use a VGA monitor in 2014? VGA for goodness sakes. Why do we feel the need to still screw our monitor cables in?

Search for "projector vga input". You'll see.

 

[mmomega]

Search for "projector vga input". You'll see.

When replacing my dead VGA projector at my office I searched for "projectors with HDMI input" just because this gives me more options. Since the projector has built in speakers I can Airplay over AppleTV or just iPad to HDMI and I don't need to worry with connecting extra speakers and another power plug.
Overall this takes up less space.

 

[Roller]

Search for "projector vga input". You'll see.

Yes, but how many people use desktop computers with projectors? I routinely do presentations using projectors with VGA input, always with a laptop. I carry adaptors for VGA and digital video, since I can never be sure what I'm going to need.

 

[capathy21]

Search for "projector vga input". You'll see.

For the few that still need VGA support, there is an adapter than will take care of that.

 

[Roller]

Apple has become like Rolex; nice equipment, but if forced to operate under average industry margins then would soon go bankrupt. This is why you will never see an xMac, a powerful, moderately priced box designed to be easily maintained and expanded by an end user.

Maybe the last great computer Apple made wasn't a Mac; it was the Apple IIgs and it did well without need of marketing hype.

Fortunately, while Apple has abandoned that class of savvy computer users who need power and expandability at a fair price, the rest of the industry has not.

There have been less expensive alternatives to Apple almost since the beginning, though one could argue that the Apple ][ series (my first "personal" computer) was powerful and expandable at a fair price and given the competition for its time.

Since then, Apple's computers have always carried a premium, arguments regarding total cost of ownership notwithstanding. However, that's a price those of us who've bought them have been willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we're less savvy than the people you speak of or that we do it because we don't know any better. I certainly don't agree with every design choice Apple makes, but I continue to buy their products because they're the best choice for me. If and when that changes, I'll go elsewhere.

 

[melendezest]

If you find one, let me know. I'm certainly not. I have zero loyalty to any company, including Apple. In the same way, I have zero animosity toward any company, including Apple. Those who like to bash companies because they don't do things the way an individual thinks they should are clearly not experienced enough in business to understand all the factors that go into product decisions.


Because a product doesn't meet your every whim doesn't make it inferior. If I want to haul a dozen refrigerators across the country, that makes a Mercedes or Porsche or Lincoln or Range Rover inferior because they're not designed to do what I want? And that means those companies have contempt for buyers because they don't design their cars to accommodate my specific and unique needs? What an incredibly naive and uninformed point of view!

They haven't stripped anything that the masses of consumers need. This is painfully obvious by the millions of people buying the very machines that you and a few others consider "inferior" because you can't have everything you want.

No, it wasn't a bad analogy, as the modem, VGA port, optical drive, IR port and others are quickly going the way of the 8-track tape... they are obsolete or very near obsolete.

Again, Apple is a company. Like millions of others, I don't "love" the company. If their products meet my needs better than other products available, I buy them. If they don't, I buy from a company who makes what I need. It's as simple as that. I don't go into childish rants because I can't force some big, bad corporation to custom-design a product just because a handful of people want it. That's not how business is done successfully.

I, for one, don't want either the expense or the clutter of ports or features I never use. I would much rather have a well-designed computer that has only the ports that are most commonly used, with the ability to add specialized functionality with adapters and other external devices. That way, I'm only paying for what I actually use, and not paying for things like a modem or VGA port just because someone with specialized needs wants those things in their computer. Those who want those things can buy them, without requiring all users to pay for them.

That's what you get for "loving" a company, instead of making logical, informed decisions about what products are best suited to your needs, rather than trying to be loyal to a particular company because of some emotional attachment.

It's so amusing to comments like this coming from those who have allowed their emotional attachment to a company interfere with mature buying decisions, which would suggest that if one company doesn't make what you want, buy from another that does. If a company stops making what you want, buy from another company. Whining that the company you "love" doesn't cater to your whims is not really displaying an awareness about how intelligent businesses operate.

Please.

Nobody here is getting emotional. The term "love" is used loosely. Not everything has to be taken so literally. It's love like "I love my car." Not like "I love my wife".

I could care less about what benefits Apple as a business. Or what's popular. I don't profit from it; it doesn't benefit me when they take features away from a product. I'm a customer. And so I can compare and critique products as I see fit.

To bring business into this conversation is to be an Apple apologist. That's you.

We're talking about Apple's products, and how they compare to the ones they discontinued. Simple as that.

While the OP was referring to an iMac (with a tongue-in-cheek tone too), the fact of the matter is my 3-year-old 17" MBP runs rings around anything Apple is putting out now, which aludes to his gripes.

I can do more with it, and that is the point:

1. More screen real estate
2. Way, way more storage. Up to 3TB so far, limited only by HD manufacturers
3. RAID. Internal backup; indispensable for field work, or speed, should I need it instead.
4. Put in my choice of drive: optical, SSD, or HDD from many vendors
5. Replace/upgrade its RAM without having to rely on a single vendor
6. Connect to any network without paying for or having to carry a dongle
7. Expand the computer should I need to connect to future/legacy environments and peripherals, such as music studios with FireWire (still a LOT out there) and fast E-SATA, SCSI, VGA, PCI, etc.

Simply put, it's a better machine, and also a better value. A real, PRO, workhorse of a computer that I can take ANYWHERE. Who cares if it weighs 1(!) pound more and is 1/8th of an inch thicker than the current models. It's as thin as it can be while giving its owner a LOT of power and (more importantly) flexibility.

The fact that Apple's new products CANNOT do the above makes them inferior. Period. The reasons why Apple removed the capabilities are irrelevant. They did not improve the product. They crippled it in the interest of aesthetics.

So don't give me the whole "mature buying decisions" BS. It's Apple who's going for the "immature" and juvenile market with it's loud, trendy color schemes, thin and light for the sole purpose of coolness, and completely blowing off the mature, tasteful, established professional with sizable infrastructure investments that aren't meant to be replaced on a hipster's whim.

 

[skottichan]

I'm not in the target market for an iMac, but unfortunately Apple don't make any other desktops of a similar spec and price, just the over the top Mac 'Pro'. Apple no longer consider their mid-range pro users.

I used to have a G4 PowerMac: expandable, powerful (at the time), but still easily affordable. When it started to age I upgraded the RAM, GPU and CPU with a Sonnet card and it carried on for another few years at little expense.

I've thought about switching to PC, but I've been using Macs since the 1990s and now I'm stuck in my ways - and I've got a bunch of expensive Mac OS design software that I'd have to replace.

So a quick check, the G4 Power Mac was introduced in 1999 for $2499. Adjusted for inflation that's $3,568.50 in 2014 Dollars.

The entry MacPro is $2999. So, even if you don't adjust for inflation, it's only $500 more, if you do dollar to dollar comparison, the new MP is cheaper ($2100 in 1999 dollars).


What kills me is how narrowly people will try to define what "professional" means. I'm a professional graphic designer in the toy industry, as long as my Cintiq and certain Adobe apps run on it, it's a "professional machine". My 2009 13" MBP works just as well for that job as my 2012 27" iMac.

I get how people pine for the "old days", and I know people personally that complain things like ADC, and serial ports are gone, but the nature of the beast is change, and you can't put dozens of connectors inside and outside of a computer, just on the off chance that removing one might inconvenience someone.

When I was a little girl, I thought the power/sleep button on the keyboard was like the coolest thing ever, but its removal isn't really an inconvenience. The vast majority of computer users don't upgrade RAM or their HDD, hell even in most work environments computers are replaced, not upgraded. Honestly, a lot of OP's list seemed to include things just to pad the list (like the lack of a modem).

 

[thejadedmonkey]

So a quick check, the G4 Power Mac was introduced in 1999 for $2499. Adjusted for inflation that's $3,568.50 in 2014 Dollars.

Yes, but 1999, a computer was a major capital investment. Today, you can get a desktop computer for $400. So while the price has remained somewhat similar, the competition is slashed their prices by 75% or more - All the while remaining upgradable, while Apple simply removed more and more.

We get it - having ports that light up and a shiny trashcan looking case is a $1000 feature, but for those of us who don't want to waste money, it's pointless. We want (standard sized) upgradable RAM, SSD's or video cards, external ports, and "real" multi-monitor support.

 

[GGJstudios]

I could care less about what benefits Apple as a business.

That's obvious. The fact is that what products Apple chooses to make and what features and functions it includes in or removes from its products is driven purely by what benefits Apple as a business. Whether a consumer cares about that or not, it's still true. Any thriving company is in business, not to cater to every desire of every consumer, but rather to make a profit by providing products or services that meets the needs of enough consumers to make the revenue and profits they aim for. By definition, some consumers won't like what they offer. That's to be expected. What isn't appropriate is for such a consumer to get upset because a company's product strategy doesn't conform to that consumer's wish list. As has been stated several times, if you don't like what Apple (or any company) makes, don't buy it! Buy something else.

To bring business into this conversation is to be an Apple apologist.

That's ludicrous. It's all about business. This thread is all about business, with some people criticizing Apple's business decisions because they don't have a clue about all the business factors that are involved in the business decisions about what products and features to offer in its business. To think that business should somehow be excluded from this discussion reveals even more evidence of a mentality that the world should somehow revolve around one or two consumers who have their own wish list, with no regard for what makes good business sense.

Simply put, it's a better machine, and also a better value. A real, PRO, workhorse of a computer that I can take ANYWHERE. Who cares if it weighs 1(!) pound more and is 1/8th of an inch thicker than the current models.

It's a better machine in your opinion. Not everyone shares your opinion. Millions of consumers can do everything they need to do with the current models in the Mac lineup, as evidenced by the fact they're buying them by the millions. Many consumers do care about weight and portability more than they care about screen size. Others don't. That's why each consumer should buy what suits their needs.

The fact that Apple's new products CANNOT do the above makes them inferior.

Again, that's only your opinion. You have an arbitrary set of criteria for what you consider superior or inferior. Many do not share your criteria, so what you call inferior, others may call superior.

So don't give me the whole "mature buying decisions" BS. It's Apple who's going for the "immature" and juvenile market with it's loud, trendy color schemes, thin and light for the sole purpose of coolness, and completely blowing off the mature, tasteful, established professional with sizable infrastructure investments that aren't meant to be replaced on a hipster's whim.

Macs have been the same color for many years... aluminum. I don't know where you're seeing "loud, trendy color schemes", but it's not in the Mac product line. Thin and light make for portability and convenience. Obviously, Apple's formula is meeting the needs and wants of a large enough market segment to generate incredible revenue and profits. Sure, with every product release or software update, there are going to be some who won't like what they see, and they'll switch to another product or company. If you lose 10,000 customers and gain 2 million, that's a net gain. And there are plenty of us "mature, tasteful, established professionals with sizable infrastructure investments" who still find that current Apple products, while far from perfect, continue to meet our needs. When that is no longer true, you won't find many of us bashing Apple in a forum. Instead, we'll simply shop around and buy whatever best meet our needs, no matter which company makes it.

 

[joe-h2o]

While the OP was referring to an iMac (with a tongue-in-cheek tone too), the fact of the matter is my 3-year-old 17" MBP runs rings around anything Apple is putting out now, which aludes to his gripes.

I can do more with it, and that is the point:

1. More screen real estate
2. Way, way more storage. Up to 3TB so far, limited only by HD manufacturers
3. RAID. Internal backup; indispensable for field work, or speed, should I need it instead.
4. Put in my choice of drive: optical, SSD, or HDD from many vendors
5. Replace/upgrade its RAM without having to rely on a single vendor
6. Connect to any network without paying for or having to carry a dongle
7. Expand the computer should I need to connect to future/legacy environments and peripherals, such as music studios with FireWire (still a LOT out there) and fast E-SATA, SCSI, VGA, PCI, etc.

Simply put, it's a better machine, and also a better value. A real, PRO, workhorse of a computer that I can take ANYWHERE. Who cares if it weighs 1(!) pound more and is 1/8th of an inch thicker than the current models. It's as thin as it can be while giving its owner a LOT of power and (more importantly) flexibility.

The fact that Apple's new products CANNOT do the above makes them inferior. Period. The reasons why Apple removed the capabilities are irrelevant. They did not improve the product. They crippled it in the interest of aesthetics.

What the hell are you smoking? Let's address these points one at a time:

1. More screen real estate. Your 17" MBP has a 1920x1200 screen. The 27" iMac has a 2560x1440 screen, so you fail with point 1. If you want to keep to laptops only, the 15" retina has a 2880x1800 screen that you can run at that native resolution if you like - you're not limited to running it at "best for retina" resolution.

Result: Fail for you.

2. Way, way more storage. Up to 3TB so far, limited only by HD manufacturers.

Do you mean internally? The iMac has a SATA port, as well as the blade connector. Any storage you can put in your 17" is easily matched by the iMac. For laptops, you are limited to external expansion. However, since you said (quote) "runs rings around anything (emphasis yours), then the iMac is fair game.

Result: Fail for you.

3. RAID. Internal backup; indispensable for field work, or speed, should I need it instead.

You can run a RAID setup on any iMac, although your description of RAID as "internal backup" is puzzling. RAID is not a backup solution. Either way, you can do it externally if it's "indispensable".

Result: Fail for you.

4. Put in my choice of drive: optical, SSD, or HDD from many vendors

You can do this on the iMac (except for the optical drive - which you can have externally). The iMac has a SATA port.

Result: Fail for you, except for the optical drive.

5. Replace/upgrade its RAM without having to rely on a single vendor

The iMac accepts RAM from multiple different vendors.

Result: Fail for you.

6. Connect to any network without paying for or having to carry a dongle

Your 17" MBP can connect to a fibre channel network without a dongle? Was that a BTO option?

Result: fail for you.

7. Expand the computer should I need to connect to future/legacy environments and peripherals, such as music studios with FireWire (still a LOT out there) and fast E-SATA, SCSI, VGA, PCI, etc.

The iMac and rMBP can do all of these things with thunderbolt. Connect a thunderbolt PCIe chassis, or a TB dock, or an eSATA adapter, or a firewire adapter, or a VGA adapter. I thought you were giving a list of things that the current Apple products couldn't do? It might help if you left of things like VGA that any Mac with a graphics card (hint: all of them) supports natively.

Result: Fail for you.

*****

Now, we'll address the "running rings around anything (emphasis yours) Apple is putting out now".

So, how does the 17" MBP you have stack up against the 27" iMac with the 780M GPU in gaming tasks (or any heavy lift GPGPU task)? Would you characterise the Radeon 6770M as "running rings around" the 780M?

What about the Sandy Bridge quad CPU. How does that stack up against the Haswell chips in the current generation. It will be closer than the laughably wide gulf between the GPUs, but again, would you characterise the Sandy Bridge chip in the 17" as "running rings around" any i7 in the Haswell generation?

Now battery life. The iMac has no battery, so you win there. The 17" MBP definitely has better battery life than the modern iMac. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it has 100% better performance than the iMac when neither are plugged into the wall.

It's a bit closer when we consider laptops though - how does the battery life stack up against any of the retina MBPs? Would you say it "runs rings around" the battery life figures of the current generation?

****

So, in conclusion, your entire post seems to be one big bundle of fail.

But keep on believing that your 17" MBP "runs rings around anything (emphasis yours) Apple is putting out".

 

[scaredpoet]

Yes, but 1999, a computer was a major capital investment. Today, you can get a desktop computer for $400.

No you can't. What you get for $400 is a bare bones, limited-speed, short-useful-life box that appeals to the pennywise and pound foolish, and has a high failure rate. Total cost of ownership IS a valid argument: you can keep buying $400 junk boxes every year and a half, or you can buy a $599 mac mini that will outclass it and last you far longer.

So while the price has remained somewhat similar, the competition is slashed their prices by 75% or more - All the while remaining upgradable, while Apple simply removed more and more.

We can continue to go in circles about this, but upgradeability is rarely the domain of the $400 PC you tout, and rarely something most users do. Those that DO want to upgrade do mange to do it pretty decently on most Macs, too.

----------

The phone is not mine, anyway. It is for my elderly parent who is blind, mobility impaired, and unable to use a cell phone. I need to monitor the line

So, again, YOU are monitoring the line, not your elderly parent. So in the case of a cell phone, the situation would be the same.

As to what telephone companies want, well, I really don't give a crap.

You should, considering they're the ones who provide the service, and most definitely won't in the very near future. You've been warned.

 

[thesimplelogic]

What I have read through this entire thread is that X person thinks that X thing is very important because X, and Apple hasn't considered that this was needed because X.

I will agree with both sides here - there are things that have gone from the iMac which I will miss, however you have to take it will a grain of salt and realise that Apple is going to attempt to do whatever holds the largest profit.

I am with OP in that I do wish that the iMac still came with an optical drive, as a lot of my software/CDs and movies are on disks, however, it doesn't bother me as there is a replacement which works well and does the job. Maybe some people don't want to pay for an external Superdrive, but if you need it, you'll want or need to pay for it.

In regards to the VGA output - this is still very common in schools. Most electronic whiteboards and projectors do still use VGA, especially if the projector is a little bit on the older site. It is a pain having to use an adapter, but it is not a big deal. It is not like you cannot use the VGA at all.

I will agree that it is a pain that the new iMac is very limited in being able to upgrade components, however - a prosumer or pro user who is buying a new iMac will generally have an idea of what they need, and many will want to have access to external drives to back up.

I've got to say that I agree with both sides here. Just my two cents worth.

 

[melendezest]

What the hell are you smoking? Let's address these points one at a time:

1. More screen real estate. Your 17" MBP has a 1920x1200 screen. The 27" iMac has a 2560x1440 screen, so you fail with point 1. If you want to keep to laptops only, the 15" retina has a 2880x1800 screen that you can run at that native resolution if you like - you're not limited to running it at "best for retina" resolution.

Result: Fail for you.

2. Way, way more storage. Up to 3TB so far, limited only by HD manufacturers.

Do you mean internally? The iMac has a SATA port, as well as the blade connector. Any storage you can put in your 17" is easily matched by the iMac. For laptops, you are limited to external expansion. However, since you said (quote) "runs rings around anything (emphasis yours), then the iMac is fair game.

Result: Fail for you.

3. RAID. Internal backup; indispensable for field work, or speed, should I need it instead.

You can run a RAID setup on any iMac, although your description of RAID as "internal backup" is puzzling. RAID is not a backup solution. Either way, you can do it externally if it's "indispensable".

Result: Fail for you.

4. Put in my choice of drive: optical, SSD, or HDD from many vendors

You can do this on the iMac (except for the optical drive - which you can have externally). The iMac has a SATA port.

Result: Fail for you, except for the optical drive.

5. Replace/upgrade its RAM without having to rely on a single vendor

The iMac accepts RAM from multiple different vendors.

Result: Fail for you.

6. Connect to any network without paying for or having to carry a dongle

Your 17" MBP can connect to a fibre channel network without a dongle? Was that a BTO option?

Result: fail for you.

7. Expand the computer should I need to connect to future/legacy environments and peripherals, such as music studios with FireWire (still a LOT out there) and fast E-SATA, SCSI, VGA, PCI, etc.

The iMac and rMBP can do all of these things with thunderbolt. Connect a thunderbolt PCIe chassis, or a TB dock, or an eSATA adapter, or a firewire adapter, or a VGA adapter. I thought you were giving a list of things that the current Apple products couldn't do? It might help if you left of things like VGA that any Mac with a graphics card (hint: all of them) supports natively.

Result: Fail for you.

*****

Now, we'll address the "running rings around anything (emphasis yours) Apple is putting out now".

So, how does the 17" MBP you have stack up against the 27" iMac with the 780M GPU in gaming tasks (or any heavy lift GPGPU task)? Would you characterise the Radeon 6770M as "running rings around" the 780M?

What about the Sandy Bridge quad CPU. How does that stack up against the Haswell chips in the current generation. It will be closer than the laughably wide gulf between the GPUs, but again, would you characterise the Sandy Bridge chip in the 17" as "running rings around" any i7 in the Haswell generation?

Now battery life. The iMac has no battery, so you win there. The 17" MBP definitely has better battery life than the modern iMac. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it has 100% better performance than the iMac when neither are plugged into the wall.

It's a bit closer when we consider laptops though - how does the battery life stack up against any of the retina MBPs? Would you say it "runs rings around" the battery life figures of the current generation?

****

So, in conclusion, your entire post seems to be one big bundle of fail.

But keep on believing that your 17" MBP "runs rings around anything (emphasis yours) Apple is putting out".

LOLOLOL.

This post is a reading comprehension fail.

I was referring to a comparison between existing, equivalent machines and their discontinued predecessors, which is what the TS was referring to, i.e. old iMac vs new iMac. I simply redirected the statement to Apple's portables.

Now that you know that, read my post again and you'll get a better sense of the point I was making.

 

[ricede]

I have been using a MBPro 17" for the last few years. It was very upgradable & I upped the Ram - Changed the Hd to a SSD etc etc very easily.

For the last year I have been film editing for a charity in India. The MBPro screen was really too small for FinalCut & I finally decided to buy an iMac.

I decided on the 27" model and was told that there would be an 8 - 10 week delay if i wanted to upgrade it to an SSD/ Fusion Drive. I checked iFixit to see the problems in fitting the SSD myself and decided against it.

I ended up buying the standard iMac - upped the Ram myself and bought a Lacie Rugged Thunderbolt drive to use as an exterior boot drive, using the 1TB internal drive just for storage. Also as i have FireWire 800 drives - i bought a FireWire to thunderbolt adapter

Yes it would have been cool to fit the SSD inside myself but hey - Ive more important things to do than get uptight about the changes Apple make. I use macs because i love OSX ( I've had to suffer film editing on Windows & wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy ! )

My answer to the initial poster is to decide whether you can use the machine to do what you need. This sometimes involves having to use a bit of lateral thought. If you cant - then get something else. Apple will go on changing specs as they see fit - all we have to do is decide whether what they offer is useful for our needs.

 

[Irishman]

I fail to see how a front mounted power/sleep button indicator is either obsolete or infrequently used. The same could be said of several other items I've listed.

Just because you fail to see something, doesn't mean others don't see it.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

No you can't. What you get for $400 is a bare bones, limited-speed, short-useful-life box that appeals to the pennywise and pound foolish, and has a high failure rate. Total cost of ownership IS a valid argument: you can keep buying $400 junk boxes every year and a half, or you can buy a $599 mac mini that will outclass it and last you far longer.

This bare-bones limited-speed short-useful-life box has an intel CPU, 500gb hard drive, 4gb of RAM... in fact, it sounds remarkably like the $1099 iMac that Apple just released - except that it has 2 accessible RAM slots, not 0. And like the G4 mac, it does not offer any workstation grade products like a FirePro GPU or ECC Ram. Did I mention that priced at $419, it comes with a monitor too?

We can continue to go in circles about this, but upgradeability is rarely the domain of the $400 PC you tout, and rarely something most users do. Those that DO want to upgrade do mange to do it pretty decently on most Macs, too.

Are you sure? Because everyone I know "knows someone" who can install more RAM or a new HDD to keep a computer running. Except you cannot do that on "most" Macs, because the only lines that allow it are the Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and high end iMac, which make up a minority of Mac sales.