Says you. Again, I disagree. The truth is you do not actually know how long that system will last this particular user nor do I.
Actually I do know how long that system lasts because there are these things called trends that I follow and the iMac has kept consistent trends for the PAST 16 YEARS!!!:roll eyes:
Similarly, I know about hardware and I've sold machines to people for several years. I know what I'm talking about. You do not. Underpowered hardware lasts less than on par hardware, which lasts less than souped up hardware. Facts!
What I do know is that it will do everything he wants it to for a long time at the least and it is less expensive which he wanted it to be.
That kind of short-sightedness is very dangerous for people who want to maximize what they get for what they pay as they will save $200 only to spend much more than that even sooner. What about this are you not getting?
I made no claim that I am a marketing expert. You invented that to suit yourself. I made a simple statement about the obvious. Namely, that Apple identified a need for that system at that price point and decided to make it.
You claim to not be a marketing expert and then, like someone who fancies themselves a marketing expert, you make an assertion about marketing.
How does that work?
Apple identified a need for a system at that price point and they made it. This is correct. What you neglect to mention is THAT IT IS A POOR SYSTEM TO HAVE CHOSEN!
Will you tell me now that a company that successful is managed by stupid people and that they are wrong and perhaps by extension even unethical if they are aware and doing this evil deed on purpose, while you are right and the system should simply not exist?
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said they were stupid or evil. I said they were wrong and made a mistake. Guess what, even successful companies do that. And yes, stupid managers are everywhere.
But yes, that particular machine was poorly chosen. You needn't be so black and white; it's not that I think they shouldn't have ANY machine at that price-point; they should definitely have one. Just not one that is so obviously a bad deal.
Seriously? Forget about myself and others in this thread, you really think you know better about this than the executives and engineers who advise them at Apple?
Regarding what will sell; no, I think they've got a good handle on things. Regarding the specific case of this machine and whether or not it is actually a GOOD machine for consumers looking to spend money, yes, I do believe they've made a misstep here. Many publications, like Macworld, agree with me, so obviously, I'm not alone in questioning the almighty Apple here.
What you do not want to hear and refuse to hear is that there is a market for an entry level machine that costs less and that machine is just fine for a lot of users.
Clearly, because I haven't just refuted that about three times in this reply alone.
It might help you if you actually READ my comments. If you do, you'll see that I'm in full support for such a model, just not THAT machine.
Apple's engineers and management are not stupid. They didn't get to where they are today by being stupid people making stupid decisions and stupid computers. Quite the contrary.
Making money and being skilled at the craft that makes you money are not the same thing. For Apple they tend to do both. But Apple's track record is not 100%. No one's track record is 100%. Even Apple, as hard as it may be to believe, makes mistakes. This system is one of them.
Look at it this way, that model is basically a desktop version of a Macbook Air but with a bigger screen and enclosure but a slower hard disk which is twice the capacity of the Macbook Air's. Is the Macbook Air a stupid computer because it has a dual core CPU? At the end of the day, what really matters is that a lot of people love them and find them useful. If you do not, that's fine but your views are not necessarily the only way to see things.
In the MacBook Air, the CPU slowness is offset by the SSD. Plain and simple. Replace the SSD with a 5400RPM 2.5" Hard Drive and it becomes a slow machine.
You just don't seem capable of dealing with the idea that for some folks a basic computer is more than fine and will in fact last them a long time. I would add that the majority of these same people are not hiring computer consultants. I doubt very much that you have much experience with them in particular. If you have various hardware certs, I would tend to think you at least work in retail repair if not serving small or even larger businesses. I wonder to what extent your professional experience really applies to assessing the real needs of home computer users. I think you make it more complicated than it needs to be. A basic computer is fine and should deliver a reasonable lifetime. Eventually, sure it will need to be replaced but by then the user will have gotten at least a reasonable value from it.
Oh wow. The false assumptions you make here are astounding.
Also, your idea of what it means to even be a computer consultant is rather limited. What do you think the Apple Store Specialists are if not computer consultants to the everyday home user? I've advised people - yes, especially home users - on what computer to buy for the past 15 years. My experience is MOSTLY with home users. I do have small and large business experience under my belt, but I'm citing ACTUAL EXPERIENCE here.
As for your assertion that I'm making it more complicated than it has to be, you obviously don't know what you're talking about as it's quite simple; underpowered hardware is a bad buy, even for basic customers. Period. No exceptions. Doesn't matter whether it's a Mac, a PC, or anything else that crunches 1's and 0's.
I think where we really differ basically is that you don't feel the value is reasonable. I think it is. That's not some generic PC. It's an Apple Macintosh.
How insulting.
Though this does very clearly showcase that you are the last person anyone should be taking advice on when it comes to hardware.
Apple Macintoshes, especially now that they use the same Intel hardware that you find in a "generic PC", are not intrinsically universally awesome and they are not all great values just because Apple made them. Some are better than others. Some are great buys where others are not. Apple makes some amazing things, but just because they're Apple-made doesn't mean that they're all great.
It's that kind of blind-faith in Apple that gives those of us who are also Apple fans (but not that blindly devout) a bad name.
If your profile usage will be maintained, go to the base model. More power than you need implies more to pay on electricity bills.
That's not universally true, especially in this case. Also the difference in electricity use is extremely minimal.
About the hard-drive inability to be changed, OSX can be booted by an external.
Yes, but performance is sluggish and that should not be used as a regular system; even Apple agrees with that.
I still use my 2005 pentium 4 540j with 2.5 gbs RAM, for internet consuming, run YouTube 720p vídeos without problems and do some gaming (not actual but run dead space 3 good, for example, thanks to x1950 Pro).
That's great; that Pentium 4 was not sub-par for 2005 desktop performance the way a Haswell ULV CPU would be FOR DESKTOP PERFORMANCE. Key difference there.
