What will disappear next?

[Fishrrman]

mmomega wrote above:
[[ I think the better question would be why would we still want to use a VGA monitor in 2014? VGA for goodness sakes. ]]

For what it's worth, I connect a Viewsonic 2770 to a late-2012 Mac Mini using a minidisplayport-to-VGA connector.

So what?

 

[melendezest]

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

And that's why you're an Apple apologist. Again, you bring business and popularity to a discussion about hardware attributes, to justify Apple's decisions. I already know what you state in the first paragraph is true. But it's pointless to know that.

The thread started with an individual commenting on what product attributes would be changed from existing products to future products. The whole thing is a hardware comparison.

There is nothing arbitrary about my post. There's no wish list. We are talking about capability (what you can or cannot do) that Apple used to build into its products and no longer does so. So, it's not really about what we wish the products had. It's about what we used to have, and don't anymore for whatever reason (in this case thinness for the sake of coolness, or whatever).

It is really simple:

Can I do more with my MBP than with any other new portable that Apple makes? Yes.

Were features/capabilites taken away from existing products when releasing the new? Yes

Are the capabilities removed still useful today (i.e.. are there still Ethernet networks, do people still use/buy/rip/collect DVD, is there still legacy/enterprise hardware out there, etc)? YES

So then, is the older product more capable than the new? YES.

Can I do what I was able to do with my 2011 machine with a 2014 machine? NO.

Can I replace my 2011 machine with a 2014 and do everything I need to? NO.

Why? Well, that's another discussion, that you particularly want to jump into every time any detraction to Apple's hardware choices are pointed out. But it is utterly irrelevant when comparing products, as the reasons why do not affect buying decisions (apparently for most, but not all).

I get that my views aren't universal. But in my world, more capable means superior.

Apparently in yours, thinner (at the expense of capability) is superior.

While I don't agree, I can accept that.

But I find it interesting that you allude that I'm "bashing" Apple in an Apple forum, as if that's something that I'm not supposed to do. This is a discussion forum. As such, pros and cons are to be expressed with regards to all Apple-related information.

 

[GGJstudios]

It is really simple:

Can I do more with my MBP than with any other new portable that Apple makes? Yes.

Name one. I can do everything on my new rMBP 13" that I did on my Early 2008 15" MBP, and more.

Are the capabilities removed still useful today (i.e.. are there still Ethernet networks, do people still use/buy/rip/collect DVD, is there still legacy/enterprise hardware out there, etc)? YES

For the minority of users who need them, all of those capabilities exist in current models, by simply using an adapter or external device.

So then, is the older product more capable than the new? YES.

False. Can your older MBP connect to a Thunderbolt device? Can it take advantage of the increased speed of USB 3.0 or 802.11ac? My new rMBP can do those things, but also connect to older, slower, more outdated technologies. So where is the advantage of older models?

Can I do what I was able to do with my 2011 machine with a 2014 machine? NO.

Can I replace my 2011 machine with a 2014 and do everything I need to? NO.

Again, name one example.

But I find it interesting that you allude that I'm "bashing" Apple in an Apple forum, as if that's something that I'm not supposed to do.

I didn't say bashing Apple is something you shouldn't do. I said it's not the appropriate route to take, unless you simply want to rant, as it accomplishes nothing. Apple isn't going to change anything it does based on anything said in this forum. They're going to continue to make product decisions based on what makes good business sense, not based on your preferences and priorities.

 

[scaredpoet]

This bare-bones limited-speed short-useful-life box has an intel CPU

Which kind? Most of the $400 bargain bin specials I've seen tend to offer either previous-gen processors or Celeron processors. They're "Intel" all right, but not the same thing.

in fact, it sounds remarkably like the $1099 iMac that Apple just released - except that it has 2 accessible RAM slots, not 0.

Does this $400 price include a monitor? What software is bundled with it?

Again, the devil is in the details, and none have been provided here on this awesome rock-bottom price system you're touting as superior.

Chances are your $400 box is actually closer in comparison to the $579 Mac mini.. but still not quite up to par.

It's okay though.. if that works for you, then by all means, by a cheap box, and be smug about how much smarter you are for buying that instead of those silly overpriced Macs. But I've played that game myself before, and learned my lesson.

Are you sure? Because everyone I know "knows someone" who can install more RAM or a new HDD to keep a computer running.

Of course they do. And how many of them actually get that "someone" to do it?

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.

Yet, these are serving the minority of computer owners who would actually plan on upgrading their systems later, as opposed to buying a system and keeping it in its out of-the-box configuration, and buying something else later.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Which kind? Most of the $400 bargain bin specials I've seen tend to offer either previous-gen processors or Celeron processors. They're "Intel" all right, but not the same thing.



Does this $400 price include a monitor? What software is bundled with it?

Again, the devil is in the details, and none have been provided here on this awesome rock-bottom price system you're touting as superior.

Chances are your $400 box is actually closer in comparison to the $579 Mac mini.. but still not quite up to par.

It's okay though.. if that works for you, then by all means, by a cheap box, and be smug about how much smarter you are for buying that instead of those silly overpriced Macs. But I've played that game myself before, and learned my lesson.



Of course they do. And how many of them actually get that "someone" to do it?



Yet, these are serving the minority of computer owners who would actually plan on upgrading their systems later, as opposed to buying a system and keeping it in its out of-the-box configuration, and buying something else later.

It's an Intel Pentium CPU, clocked at 3.1 ghz. It's no Core i5 (That's $550) but it's good enough for casual usage, much like the $1099 iMac is. If you want to remove the screen comparison, it's a $329 PC from Dell. On sale now. Upgradable, and capable of running software from the 90's as a supported option.

And I'm not claiming that it's superior to anything, simply that computer prices have come down and the $329 Dell is roughly comparable to a $2500 G4 in terms of usage. If we can assert that a $329 Dell is roughly comparable to a G4 in usage, then it follows that the price of a computer has decreased from $2500 to $300.

Therefore, Apple's $3000 Mac Pro is 10x as expensive as the G4 was, when you use real world dollars.

And for the privilege of paying 10x over market value, you get a computer that can increasingly do less and less, and use less and less hardware.

 

[capathy21]

And that's why you're an Apple apologist. Again, you bring business and popularity to a discussion about hardware attributes, to justify Apple's decisions. I already know what you state in the first paragraph is true. But it's pointless to know that.

The thread started with an individual commenting on what product attributes would be changed from existing products to future products. The whole thing is a hardware comparison.

There is nothing arbitrary about my post. There's no wish list. We are talking about capability (what you can or cannot do) that Apple used to build into its products and no longer does so. So, it's not really about what we wish the products had. It's about what we used to have, and don't anymore for whatever reason (in this case thinness for the sake of coolness, or whatever).

It is really simple:

Can I do more with my MBP than with any other new portable that Apple makes? Yes.

Were features/capabilites taken away from existing products when releasing the new? Yes

Are the capabilities removed still useful today (i.e.. are there still Ethernet networks, do people still use/buy/rip/collect DVD, is there still legacy/enterprise hardware out there, etc)? YES

So then, is the older product more capable than the new? YES.

Can I do what I was able to do with my 2011 machine with a 2014 machine? NO.

Can I replace my 2011 machine with a 2014 and do everything I need to? NO.

Why? Well, that's another discussion, that you particularly want to jump into every time any detraction to Apple's hardware choices are pointed out. But it is utterly irrelevant when comparing products, as the reasons why do not affect buying decisions (apparently for most, but not all).

I get that my views aren't universal. But in my world, more capable means superior.

Apparently in yours, thinner (at the expense of capability) is superior.

While I don't agree, I can accept that.

But I find it interesting that you allude that I'm "bashing" Apple in an Apple forum, as if that's something that I'm not supposed to do. This is a discussion forum. As such, pros and cons are to be expressed with regards to all Apple-related information.

It is pretty much impossible to address your point of view without bringing up the Apple's business decisions (since that is the entire point), but I will try. When I recently purchased my Macbook(retina 13 inch MBP), I could have gone with the classic, mid 2012 non retina Macbook Pro since it had all of these old features and ports. The question was, why would I want to?

1)It's over a pound heavier which yes, it makes a lot of difference when carrying it from class to class, to and from work, etc.

2)It is dated technology. The processor is already two years old. It has a standard, slow 5400 hard drive, older graphics etc. Yes the drive can be updated to SSD and ram expanded but for the cost of those upgrades, I could have had the retina MBP.

3)Technology has evolved. It's not just about "for the sake of coolness or whatever," these archaic features just aren't needed anymore for most users. Anything that you claim is a bonus on your old machine can be done on my 2013 retina MBP with an adapter. I haven't lost any functionality from what your machine could do, I have gained so much more.

1) Should I ever need to plug into an ethernet connection, a 5 dollar adapter from Amazon will allow me to do that. (Before you tell me how I shouldn't have to buy an adapter to accomplish what your machine accomplishes) I would much rather have one less port on the side of my machine which means one less internal components which means lighter, easier to transport, and overall less than can go wrong later.

2) Should I need to use an optical drive(haven't in over 5 years)-I can get an external for 20 bucks for the one time I actually need it. (again much prefer the less bulk and lightness of a machine with no drive on the side of it. It's unnecessary weight and more moving parts that could break later.

3) VGA-Same solution as #1.

I could keep going but you get the point. All of these archaic features that have been removed are no longer needed by 9 out of 10 users. What we have gained is much more important to most everyone.

1) Battery life-Removing things like an optical drive allowed Apple to change the design of the battery, allowing for much better battery life. 9-15 hours off charge for a laptop is MUCH more important than having an optical drive that may get used once a year.

2) Speed-all of the new machines are significantly faster than their predecessors. Once you experience everyday tasks on a newer Mac with PCIe based storage etc, anything else feels like stepping back in time.

Long story short, anything that you think you have to have such as an optical drive, ethernet port etc can all be done on the newer macs with a simple adapter or usb cable. You also gain a much faster machine with much better battery life and a display that blows the older displays out of the water.

So in my opinion an the opinion of the majority of consumers, the newer machine are MORE capable than the old ones. There is a more efficient way of doing 90 percent of the tasks that these old features were designed for. Instead of discs, use thumb drives or sd cards, instead of ethernet, get on wifi. Are there rare times when you may need these things? Sure. Get an adapter. I would much rather have an adapter in my bag than lug around a 5 or 6 pound laptop with a ton of ports on the side that are not necessary most of the time.

Again I use the comparison of the classic non retina mbp which is still available today, and the retina mbp or the Macbook Air. People are choosing the lighter, faster, and more efficient machines. Yes less ports is more efficient for most users. I find the weight difference possibly the most important improvement. College students, young professionals and artists are the bulk of Apple's consumers. They don't want to lug an archaic machine around. They want light, thin, fast, and yes aesthetically pleasing machines. That is the future of computers and technology in general.

 

[skottichan]

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.

The problem with your argument. Comparable workstations by other manufacturers are all in line with Apple's prices, comparing a workstation to an entry level consumer machine is disingenuous at best.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The problem with your argument. Comparable workstations by other manufacturers are all in line with Apple's prices, comparing a workstation to an entry level consumer machine is disingenuous at best.

Oh for sure! But as the comparison started off with an upgradable G4 desktop that was only $2,500. The most comparable machine to the G4 is a cheap Dell, not a workstation box.

 

[scaredpoet]

It's an Intel Pentium CPU, clocked at 3.1 ghz. It's no Core i5 (That's $550)

And that's where your comparison breaks down, and my point is made. Yes, $329 is cheap. So's the hardware that you get for it, and the longevity of that hardware is nonexistent.

I see we're talking in circles. Again, if you feel that frequently buying cheap gear makes more sense than buying something more epxensive but higher spec'd that will last a while, I won't ridicule you for it, as long as you're not ridiculing those taking the other tack. But, since you kinda are...

----------

And I'm not claiming that it's superior to anything, simply that computer prices have come down and the $329 Dell is roughly comparable to a $2500 G4 in terms of usage.

You MIGHT be right there (I know some people in the PowerPC Mac forums who will passionately disagree with you), but fortunately, you're not buying a $2500 G4 today.

So, you need to stop comparing today's computers with the Macs of ten years ago. We're talking about the Macs built today.

As an aside though: going back to my friends in the PowerPC forum: many of them are still using the G4s they bought ten years ago, and will argue that they got far more than their $2500 worth through that long life.

If we can assert that a $329 Dell is roughly comparable to a G4 in usage, then it follows that the price of a computer has decreased from $2500 to $300.

Actually, no, we can't assert that, because not all computers are equal. If that were true, then ALL Dells would be $325, and so wuold all HPs and so would all Lenovos, and Sonys. But the reality is instead, this: A $329 Dell is nowhere close to the capabilities of a $2500 Dell, let alone a $2500 Mac. In the latter, the CPUs are faster and more capable, there are more and faster storage options, there more capable GPUs, and there are faster and more voluminous RAM options.

Therefore, Apple's $3000 Mac Pro is 10x as expensive as the G4 was, when you use real world dollars.

Actually, that's only the case in JadedMonkeyWorld, where all every computer user in existence needs is a $325 junkbox.

In the ACTUAL real world, different people have different needs. Some people perform HD and 4K video editing, audio processing, play graphic intensive games, have a need to process large amounts of image or other data, quickly. For them, more powerful, more expensive, better quality equipment are necessary.

And for those who THINK a $325 PC will work for them, well, you can buy that. Good luck!

 

[thejadedmonkey]

....

I think you're missing my point.


In 1999, you spent $2500 to get a G4. You could spend about the same price to get a Pentium 4, too. Computers in 1999 were "newer", and more expensive, but a high end "family computer" was around $2000-$2500 (at least my families computer was).

Now, today, a "family desktop" costs around $329. Maybe $600 on the higher end. We can assume that the costs associated with a family computer have dropped by 80%.

Meanwhile, the Mac Pro is just as expensive. 8x as much. They call it a "workstation" now, and give it ECC RAM and FirePro GPU's, but it still fills the same spot in their product lineup, and it's increasingly "too expensive".

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... for those of us who don't want to waste money, it's pointless.

 

[scaredpoet]

I think you're missing my point.

No, I see what your point is. I just happen to think that one has to ignore reality to believe the point is a correct one.

In 1999, you spent $2500 to get a G4. You could spend about the same price to get a Pentium 4, too. Computers in 1999 were "newer", and more expensive, but a high end "family computer" was around $2000-$2500 (at least my families computer was).

Actually, in 1999, you had a range of options, just as people do now. You could get a top of the line (for the time) system for $2000-$2500, or you could get a cheap Celeron 466MHz system with 128MB or RAM, in the $400 range.

The price points were all there; the major difference was the the technology was more primitive than it is today. So your money overall bought you less capability than it would today across that same price range.

Macs were similarly in a range. You could get a high end G4 Powermac for $2,000 plus, or you could get an iMac on a student discount for around $899, and there were also one or two models in between.

Now, today, a "family desktop" costs around $329. Maybe $600 on the higher end. We can assume that the costs associated with a family computer have dropped by 80%.

This again depends on the family's needs. Some families are just facebookers; all they need is something that'll browse the web. Others (like my family) have terabytes of media to store and share, a library of audio tapes dating back to cassette, pictures on film, and videos dating back to VHS tapes that were all carefully transferred to digital. Memories of family and friends not with us anymore, along with new faces and events and memories they're recording on their smartphones today. They might want to play very high res videos on the 4K TV, interface their electronics to share content, maybe even make and edit their own family movies. What they should buy depends on those needs, and what their budget is.

It's also now common for some families to have more than one computer. Some may have an expensive main computer, and one or two basic systems, or several smartphones, or one or more tablets, or all or any combination of the above. There are lots of different possibilities now.

In fact, some people may find that a simple $299 tablet or a smartphone is more than enough for their needs. Fortunately, Apple sells those things too.

Again, a single $329 desktop box won't suit the needs of every family.

Meanwhile, the Mac Pro is just as expensive. 8x as much. They call it a "workstation" now, and give it ECC RAM and FirePro GPU's, but it still fills the same spot in their product lineup, and it's increasingly "too expensive".

"Too expensive" for you perhaps, and that's fine. Fortunately, Apple doesn't just sell Mac Pros. And fortunately for Apple, not every family will only want to buy a single $329 desktop.

THAT is the point.

 

[joe-h2o]

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.

No, you really weren't, and if you were, you worded it very poorly.

What you're trying to do is redefine your argument because you've been called out on it being total nonsense, and failing.

Tell me again how your 17" MBP (quote) "runs rings around anything (emphasis yours) Apple puts out now".

I'll wait.

 

[leman]

I sure hope that complainers with horrible argumentation will disappear next 😛

But in all seriousness:

So then, is the older product more capable than the new? YES.

You totally lost me here... of course the new product is more capable. Its faster, lighter, has better screen, faster WiFi, faster storage, faster everything. You can connect an external RAID box filled with SSDs and still saturate the SSD speed, for all what is worth. You call that less capable? 😀

Can I do what I was able to do with my 2011 machine with a 2014 machine? NO.
Can I replace my 2011 machine with a 2014 and do everything I need to? NO.

Wrong! You can do everything and then more. Want to rip a CD? Buy a drive. Need ethernet? Get an adapter. There is absolutely no reason for Apple to put all that junk into the machine so that all of us should suffer because you still need to use legacy media for some reason.

In your logic, the 2011 model sucks because it does not have a floppy drive, a serial port or a build-in Zip drive reader.

----------

And I'm not claiming that it's superior to anything, simply that computer prices have come down and the $329 Dell is roughly comparable to a $2500 G4 in terms of usage. If we can assert that a $329 Dell is roughly comparable to a G4 in usage, then it follows that the price of a computer has decreased from $2500 to $300.

Therefore, Apple's $3000 Mac Pro is 10x as expensive as the G4 was, when you use real world dollars.

I have with great interest read your exchange with scaredpoet. In any case, point does not make any sense. If your chain of arguments show anything, is that computers became more affordable, that is all. The Mac Pro is a specialised machine and it is priced not far off other machines of similar capabilities. Comparing it to a $329 Dell is like comparing a racing car to a cheap family vehicle on the basis that 'there was a time where all cars were expensive'. There was also time, where a pair of boots would cost you half of your years wage — now you can buy better ones for pocket money. Still does not stop some people from being really expensive boots, for whatever reasons.

 

[cynics]

Wrong! You can do everything and then more. Want to rip a CD? Buy a drive. Need ethernet? Get an adapter. There is absolutely no reason for Apple to put all that junk into the machine so that all of us should suffer because you still need to use legacy media for some reason.

In your logic, the 2011 model sucks because it does not have a floppy drive, a serial port or a build-in Zip drive reader.

Kind of a moot argument when Apple themselves still supports and sells those "Legacy" items new. Airport devices with ethernet (AppleTV as well), adaptors supporting it, disc drives, etc etc.

I could see your point if you had to go aftermarket for that stuff.

Factoring out CPU/GPU because both have them and using the latest Apple offered at the time it would be pretty pricey to give a 2013 iMac the same capabilities as a 2011 using Apple peripherals. Speed bumps are a natural progression of computers so saying one has USB 3 or whatever isn't a very fair argument because like the CPU/GPU its going to get faster.

Side note. I have a buddy who has his iMac built into a shelving system on the wall, its a PITA to get to the power button and the speakers don't sound that great. I could see a reason that SOME may prefer a more accessible power button. Flip side is with his setup side mounted ports wouldn't work as well.

 

[marzer]

Just a bunch of cranky old men...

Say it all together, "Flobble-dee-flee"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BbU4Cb4A4-o

 

[Thermonuclear]

My old Power Mac G4

I have a 400 MHz Power Mac G4 (Sawtooth) which I bought new back in 2000 for under US$2000. Even back in those days of ancient technology, Apple managed to make a state of the art desktop at a price similar to the competition with:

1. Front mounted power switch
2. Power/sleep indicator light
3. Easily upgradable RAM (four slots, came with 64 MB but goes to 2 GB)
4. Easily upgradable drives (room for four plus optical)
5. Easily replaceable lithium battery
6. Easily upgradable video card
7. Front mounted speaker
8. Card slots

Plus various other ports and devices, although some now have faster latter day replacements. My G4 is still used after absorbing many upgrades except for the CPU (it's in a socket, so that's possible) and the RAM is now only 1 GB instead of 2 GB.

These were all useful features. And they still are useful, although perhaps not fashionable. Did Apple same much money by cutting these features? Not really, you can get state of the art motherboards from a half dozen manufacturers all of which have plenty of ports left out on Apple's latest, and most of these boards sell for under US$200 and many for under US100. For proof, see http://www.newegg.com/Motherboards/Category/ID-20

No, Apple doesn't make money by leaving out what others have as standard features. Apple makes money by selling you a boatload of different adapters plus a new machine twice as often as would otherwise be the case.

 

[NewbieCanada]

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.

If you just want to know the time of day, that's what phones are for.

I have no quarrel with people who wear watches as jewelry or a fashion accessory, or with people who use a multi-function watch for sports, but just for knowing the time?

 

[fuchsdh]

everything I've ever said since 2009

Why are you here? I can only assume you get some sort of thrill of being "better" than others here, and smugly telling them that they're Apple sheeple. I just don't understand why you're wasting your time here. You've bitched about Apple, judging from your posting history, essentially the entire time you've been here. Maybe you should move on, try some yoga, and reduce that blood pressure.

 

[Roller]

I have a 400 MHz Power Mac G4 (Sawtooth) which I bought new back in 2000 for under US$2000. Even back in those days of ancient technology, Apple managed to make a state of the art desktop at a price similar to the competition with:

1. Front mounted power switch
2. Power/sleep indicator light
3. Easily upgradable RAM (four slots, came with 64 MB but goes to 2 GB)
4. Easily upgradable drives (room for four plus optical)
5. Easily replaceable lithium battery
6. Easily upgradable video card
7. Front mounted speaker
8. Card slots

Plus various other ports and devices, although some now have faster latter day replacements. My G4 is still used after absorbing many upgrades except for the CPU (it's in a socket, so that's possible) and the RAM is now only 1 GB instead of 2 GB.

These were all useful features. And they still are useful, although perhaps not fashionable. Did Apple same much money by cutting these features? Not really, you can get state of the art motherboards from a half dozen manufacturers all of which have plenty of ports left out on Apple's latest, and most of these boards sell for under US$200 and many for under US100. For proof, see http://www.newegg.com/Motherboards/Category/ID-20

No, Apple doesn't make money by leaving out what others have as standard features. Apple makes money by selling you a boatload of different adapters plus a new machine twice as often as would otherwise be the case.

Your original post was about features that Apple has removed from the iMac over the years. I tend to agree with a few of the items in your list (for example, I preferred Apple's older keyboards), but I've found low-cost workarounds.

Since their inception, iMacs weren't meant to be user-upgradeable. They were designed as appliances that would look good and serve their purpose without requiring much if any tinkering. Other Apple computers (PowerMacs, Mac Pros) provided ways to upgrade video cards, drives, and so on.

 

[antman2x2]

Look at the features that don't get used much, see that alternatives are available and mainstream enough, etc.

To me, Thunderbolt makes little sense on consumer hardware because of the typical pro uses and pricing linked to it, but who knows. Ethernet should have probably gone the dodo way already if it weren't for wifi's reliability issues in some environments.

I completely disagree with you on the ethernet thing.

I was recently an advocate of using Wi-Fi because, why the hell not? Why use a wire when you can go wireless.

But recently I switched over to ethernet after having NUMEROUS issues and slow downs using Wi-Fi ONLY on my iMac, after hard wiring my home I can honestly say theres nothing like a good old wired connection. For apple to remove the ethernet ports would ruin alot of peoples experiences.

 

[crsh1976]

I completely disagree with you on the ethernet thing.

I was recently an advocate of using Wi-Fi because, why the hell not? Why use a wire when you can go wireless.

But recently I switched over to ethernet after having NUMEROUS issues and slow downs using Wi-Fi ONLY on my iMac, after hard wiring my home I can honestly say theres nothing like a good old wired connection. For apple to remove the ethernet ports would ruin alot of peoples experiences.

Don't get me wrong, I experienced the same several times - wifi makes more sense on paper, is more advanced and more practical, etc, but in reality wifi bumps into critical real-world issues that cannot always be easily overcome. Ethernet, while an old standard, not only still serves a purpose, but is still overall a better and more reliable networking standard than wifi.

 

[Thermonuclear]

"Just buy an Apple adapter", so they said

"Just buy an Apple adapter", so they said. "There's one for every kind of port which has been deleted."

Because many Mac models do not have native HDMI output but do have native mDP/Thunderbolt output, one of the common video adapters needed is a mDP-to-HDMI (or Thunderbolt-to-HDMI).

First, Apple makes no such adapter.

Second, Apple's only recommendations for this adapter are made only by Belkin. There are only two, and they are identical except for cable length.

Third, the cheaper of the two costs US$45 -- not very cheap at all.

Forth and worst, the reviews of these adapters say that they are basically busted junk and a waste of money.

Read for yourself: http://store.apple.com/us/product/HA825ZM/A/belkin-mini-displayport-to-hdmi-cable-2-m65-ft

This is all extra bad because the number of monitors with HDMI input (like hundreds of millions of consumer TVs) is many orders of magnitude greater than those taking DP/Thunderbolt input.

Nearly as bad are the reviews for Apple's only mDP-to-dual link DVI adapter for use with anything other than an Apple monitor. And this adapter is even more expensive at US$100.

Also, how many free mDP/Thunderbolt ports does your Mac have left after you plug in all the stuff? Remember that there is no such thing as a cheap Thunderbolt hub or switch, so no help there. And each of those adapters must appear either at a the end of a chain or just by itself.

Today we have Thunderbolt, Thunderbolt 2, and stories of future Thunderbolts with different speeds, amperages, protocols, etc. But how many different Thunderbolt displays are there? Just one so far, after three years. Who knows how many different adapters will ultimately be needed?

 

[gmanist1000]

TIL people are bemoaning the lack of VGA on a modern computer in 2014.

The school I work at only has VGA projectors.

 

[robgendreau]

Computer users who argue about stuff like this seem rather odd to me. The underlying theme seems to be complaining that there isn't one box made by Apple to do it. Or, in the case of the recently demised Aperture, one software solution to do it all.

If you work with tools in any other endeavor you accept you may need different ones. I'd love it if the world was all metric, but I still need SAE as well. And there are gonna be lots of times with old stuff or new stuff that I'm gonna need a dedicated too, or have to make one myself. It's a bummer, but no one would complain that there "All in One Mechanics 153 Piece Toolset" they got for their birthday was gonna take care of every mechanical problem.

Sometimes the choices made by a company like Apple, however, do seem to be designed just to mess with the consumer. Like the various changes in fasteners. They are super hostile to DIYers which in this day and age of maker culture seems super retrograde to me, and has caused me to pass on some of their hardware. But they cater to folks who don't even have a screwdriver at home. I can make a hackintosh, so their loss. DeWalt wants me to forever use their tools cuz their battery is shaped different than Harbor Freights; I hate that too. But it's just a part of tool use.

 

[joe-h2o]

"Just buy an Apple adapter", so they said. "There's one for every kind of port which has been deleted."

Because many Mac models do not have native HDMI output but do have native mDP/Thunderbolt output, one of the common video adapters needed is a mDP-to-HDMI (or Thunderbolt-to-HDMI).

First, Apple makes no such adapter.

Second, Apple's only recommendations for this adapter are made only by Belkin. There are only two, and they are identical except for cable length.

Third, the cheaper of the two costs US$45 -- not very cheap at all.

Forth and worst, the reviews of these adapters say that they are basically busted junk and a waste of money.

Read for yourself: http://store.apple.com/us/product/HA825ZM/A/belkin-mini-displayport-to-hdmi-cable-2-m65-ft

This is all extra bad because the number of monitors with HDMI input (like hundreds of millions of consumer TVs) is many orders of magnitude greater than those taking DP/Thunderbolt input.

Nearly as bad are the reviews for Apple's only mDP-to-dual link DVI adapter for use with anything other than an Apple monitor. And this adapter is even more expensive at US$100.

Also, how many free mDP/Thunderbolt ports does your Mac have left after you plug in all the stuff? Remember that there is no such thing as a cheap Thunderbolt hub or switch, so no help there. And each of those adapters must appear either at a the end of a chain or just by itself.

Today we have Thunderbolt, Thunderbolt 2, and stories of future Thunderbolts with different speeds, amperages, protocols, etc. But how many different Thunderbolt displays are there? Just one so far, after three years. Who knows how many different adapters will ultimately be needed?

You are seriously grasping at straws and constantly changing your argument. I'm not allowed due to the playpen moderation to call you a rhymes-with-scroll, so all I can do is point out your ridiculous arguments.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to prove here? You start by complaining that the iMac is losing features, then you compare it to your "runs rings around anything (emphasis yours) Apple puts out now" 17" MBP, then when called on that nonsense you start comparing the iMac to a powermac G4, then you start a tirade about a single, specific adapter made by one company (while obviously ignoring all the other adapters available for sale).

I have to ask, have you taken your Ritalin today?

If this is an exercise in rhymes-with-polling then surely you have homework you're neglecting or something?