Why so much hate for the new iMac?

[inscrewtable]

For a desktop, I agree, the machine ought to be thicker, not thinner...

..Desktops do not need to be made thinner. The only benefit from making them thinner is aesthetics. I'd much rather a better performing computer that will last longer than a prettier computer that's thinner. I see no reason why such an attitude is not sensible on my part.

Two points, 1. Aesthetics is a very big part of the mac experience. 2. You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that the iMac being thinner will not perform as well. Where is your logic there?

You may guess that perhaps it will run hotter, but that is just an uneducated guess, without any understanding of the airflow engineering that has gone into the iMac. It is more likely to run cooler due to there being less volume so the air can move through faster. You may think it should have a tower GPU, but again that was out of the question even in the discontinued Mac and performance is far improved on the older Radeon cards. So how to you decide that the new iMac 'performs' not as well as the older one, due to it's sleeker design?

 

[Icaras]

The flip-side to my previous argument: you must not be playing that many games.

What a wild assumption. Really? Just because I "prefer" to game on my Mac automatically equates to me not gaming much? Seriously, how? Why?

My Steam library is close to 300 games, and since the launch of the Mac App Store, I've accumulated over 70 titles on that platform alone. Just recently bought Deus Ex Revolution and Batman Arkham Asylum in fact and I can't wait to get Borderlands 2 and Arkham City soon.

Some people can be considered "hard-core" gamers in the sense that they play many games, but simply don't want to play on PCs and don't care about extreme polygon crunching performance. Is it really that difficult to imagine?

----------

You are obviously not a technician or someone who cares about the internal design of their machine then.

I'm obviously a consumer and someone who also needs OSX to run Logic Pro. What's your point?

Love the design. Sorry you don't.

 

[Icaras]

Desktops do not need to be made thinner. The only benefit from making them thinner is aesthetics. I'd much rather a better performing computer that will last longer than a prettier computer that's thinner. I see no reason why such an attitude is not sensible on my part.

And how long have you been buying Apple products? Except for the Power Mac/Mac Pro, I recommend you examine the past 10 years of Apple consumer desktop design and tell me if you notice any patterns.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Two points, 1. Aesthetics is a very big part of the mac experience. 2. You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that the iMac being thinner will not perform as well. Where is your logic there?

1. Utility and function are much bigger parts of the Mac experience. I switched from Windows to the Mac not because the Mac was prettier, but because it functioned well and worked better as a computer platform. I have a gaming tower running Windows 7 that is no less sleek externally than any iMac that has ever existed; what keeps me using my MacBook Pro as my primary computer is that the OS is more reliable and requires substantially less maintenance and care in use.

2. I never made the assumption that the iMacs being thinner would lead to worse performance. I made the assumption that the iMacs being thinner would lead to worse reliability. Historically, citing data accumulated from threads here as well as real-life experience working at multiple Apple Authorized Service Providers, while also knowing how much heat these components typically generate, I don't feel like this assumption is at all unfounded. In the case of the new 21.5" iMac, I think they may have improved reliability substantially, but only as a result of using slower components (as they generate less heat). If they made it thicker, and thusly had more room, they could use more powerful components. You cannot refute this; this is physics. Also, the iMac is a desktop. Desktops are not laptops that need to be made thinner for increased portability. Desktops are stationary and can be as large as they want. The larger the machine, the greater the performance. The greater the performance, the longer the life. The longer the life, the longer the time goes between me shelling out $~1500-3000 for a new one. I fail to see what is so ridiculous about this notion.

You may guess that perhaps it will run hotter, but that is just an uneducated guess, without any understanding of the airflow engineering that has gone into the iMac. It is more likely to run cooler due to there being less volume so the air can move through faster. You may think it should have a tower GPU, but again that was out of the question even in the discontinued Mac and performance is far improved on the older Radeon cards. So how to you decide that the new iMac 'performs' not as well as the older one, due to it's sleeker design?

I never said that the newer iMac performed slower than the older one due to its design. You are reacting to things I haven't at all said. What I am saying is that the 27" iMac uses a lot of hot components as did the 2009-2011 21.5" iMacs. 3.5" Hard drives generate heat. Gamer-laptop-PC form-factor graphics boards, generate heat (and that's largely why those laptops are also unreliable), full desktop class (no "S") processors and chipsets (north and south bridges) also generate heat. This is why they typically go inside of a tower and not inside of a flat-screen monitor. To assume that Apple has magically placed fans in spots to drastically reduce this heat is naive and foolish. Touch the top of any 2011 iMac that has been on for no more than 5 minutes and you'll immediately tell. Also, why else would it have more temperature sensors than any other Mac. Do you mean to tell me that Apple put custom firmware in the hard drives of those machines to utilize their own internal temperature sensors (which is something they don't do on any of their other hard drive based machines) because the iMac is just "so advanced"? GET REAL!

What a wild assumption. Really? Just because I "prefer" to game on my Mac automatically equates to me not gaming much? Seriously, how? Why?

My Steam library is close to 300 games, and since the launch of the Mac App Store, I've accumulated over 70 titles on that platform alone. Just recently bought Deus Ex Revolution and Batman Arkham Asylum in fact and I can't wait to get Borderlands 2 and Arkham City soon.

Some people can be considered "hard-core" gamers in the sense that they play many games, but simply don't want to play on PCs and don't care about extreme polygon crunching performance. Is it really that difficult to imagine

It's not an unfair assumption when you consider (a) there aren't that many games for Mac on Steam compared to the ones on Windows, (b) games such as Arkham City take at least a year to be ported to OS X, and (c) games run better under DirectX than they do under OpenGL. These are things that your average hardcore gamer cares about. If you don't, that's not to say that you aren't a gamer, nor is it to say that you shouldn't game on a Mac. Hell, I have Arkham Asylum on both my Mac and my PC, and it will theoretically run substantially faster on my Mac than my PC. The fact that I'm even considering playing it on my Mac has no bearing on that. But I'm not fooling anyone, if I want to play the latest games, I'm likely not playing them on my Mac until a year after the fact, if at all, by which time, most hardcore players are long done with it.

I'm obviously a consumer and someone who also needs OSX to run Logic Pro. What's your point?

Love the design. Sorry you don't.

I'm also a consumer. My point is that a desktop that you can't easily replace the hard drive of is not practical, and at the price of an iMac, most people can't afford them to not be practical. In 2006, I bought a 20" iMac (Early 2006; the Core Duo iMac). I replaced it in January 2011 with a Mac mini Server because I ran out of internal space and could not afford a NAS or external solution that fit my needs. The biggest drive you could get in 2006 was a 500GB drive. If I could've slapped in a 2TB drive, I would've been able to easily get another year and a half of usefulness out of that machine before it became prudent to get the MacBook Pro I now use instead. I would've much rather that then buying a Mac mini Server to use for a year and a half and then sell, but that wasn't an option. Believe me, iMacs have always looked awesome on the outside, but if it's not user-accessible and even tricky/dangerous for the technicians to service, it's a poor design. Period. IF you can afford to replace your iMac every five years or even more frequently, fantastic. But if I can't squeeze a sixth year where the rest of the system ought to support it, that's poor design.

 

[Icaras]

It's not an unfair assumption when you consider (a) there aren't that many games for Mac on Steam compared to the ones on Windows, (b) games such as Arkham City take at least a year to be ported to OS X, and (c) games run better under DirectX than they do under OpenGL. These are things that your average hardcore gamer cares about. If you don't, that's not to say that you aren't a gamer, nor is it to say that you shouldn't game on a Mac. Hell, I have Arkham Asylum on both my Mac and my PC, and it will theoretically run substantially faster on my Mac than my PC. The fact that I'm even considering playing it on my Mac has no bearing on that. But I'm not fooling anyone, if I want to play the latest games, I'm likely not playing them on my Mac until a year after the fact, if at all, by which time, most hardcore players are long done with it.

This is not an argument about operating systems, but physical hardware. Obviously the vast majority of my 200+ title library are not available for OSX, which is why I bootcamp into Windows.

The argument here is gaming between Mac and PC hardware, and your assumption that I and many others would not be a frequent gamer just because my hardware happens to only be a Mac, is false.

It's I'm also a consumer. My point is that a desktop that you can't easily replace the hard drive of is not practical, and at the price of an iMac, most people can't afford them to not be practical. In 2006, I bought a 20" iMac (Early 2006; the Core Duo iMac). I replaced it in January 2011 with a Mac mini Server because I ran out of internal space and could not afford a NAS or external solution that fit my needs. The biggest drive you could get in 2006 was a 500GB drive. If I could've slapped in a 2TB drive, I would've been able to easily get another year and a half of usefulness out of that machine before it became prudent to get the MacBook Pro I now use instead. I would've much rather that then buying a Mac mini Server to use for a year and a half and then sell, but that wasn't an option. Believe me, iMacs have always looked awesome on the outside, but if it's not user-accessible and even tricky/dangerous for the technicians to service, it's a poor design. Period. IF you can afford to replace your iMac every five years or even more frequently, fantastic. But if I can't squeeze a sixth year where the rest of the system ought to support it, that's poor design.

The iMac has never been user-accessible as far as I know. And if I'm not mistaken, the recent iFix it tear down shows that hard drive in the 2012 iMac is just as difficult to replace as it's past iterations.

So not sure why your griping heavily on the thinner design of the 2012 iMac if servicing conditions aren't much different than from the past.

 

[Yebubbleman]

And how long have you been buying Apple products? Except for the Power Mac/Mac Pro, I recommend you examine the past 10 years of Apple consumer desktop design and tell me if you notice any patterns.

I've been an Apple owner for a decade and a user for nearly thirteen years. I'm aware of the patterns existing in their desktop design. This is why around a year ago, I swore that the only Apple desktop I'd ever buy or use would be a Hackintosh. This is also why I own one Mac and it is a MacBook Pro. This is also why when given the choice between an Ivy-Bridge GeForce-GT-650M laden 15-inch MacBook Pro with a retina display or one without, I opted for the one without and haven't felt even an ounce of buyer's remorse. I recognize that the Mac I bought will most likely not be renewed in the Haswell refresh where the one I didn't will, and that's fine. In 6 years when I'm ready to replace my MacBook Pro with a new model, I will be ready to give up the features that made my current one so appealing. In a laptop, compromises are far easier to stomach than they are in a desktop.

This is not an argument about operating systems, but physical hardware. Obviously the vast majority of my 200+ title library are not available for OSX, which is why I bootcamp into Windows.

The argument here is gaming between Mac and PC hardware, and your assumption that I and many others would not be a frequent gamer just because my hardware happens to only be a Mac, is false.

Then I make another assumption that is most likely true: you don't care about hardware or upgradability.

If you did, you'd quickly realize that an iMac is a terrible deal and that for the price of a 27" iMac that is respectable for gaming (both in Windows and in OS X) you could buy an entry level non-retina 15" MacBook Pro and have enough left over to build a PC tower that is just as powerful as said 27" iMac would've been. Trust me, I once loved the design of the iMac and was completely determined to eventually buy a 27" iMac, but for a variety of reasons, it's the least practical Mac that Apple makes, and I don't have the money to spend on a computer that isn't practical. The best thing someone buying a new 27" iMac can do if they want to use it for gaming like you do is to splurge on the storage, processor, and graphics now because upgrading that stuff later is tricky let alone nigh-on impossible. Again, if you have the money to do that, congrats. Most people don't. I don't. If I did, I'd probably sell my tower for an i7 27" iMac with a 3TB Fusion Drive and the GTX 680MX (as that'd surely best my tower equipped with a Phenom II x4 and a Radeon HD 6850) and when I wanted more oomph, I'd throw out that iMac and get another one.

The iMac has never been user-accessible as far as I know. And if I'm not mistaken, the recent iFix it tear down shows that hard drive in the 2012 iMac is just as difficult to replace as it's past iterations.

So not sure why your griping heavily on the thinner design of the 2012 iMac if servicing conditions aren't much different than from the past.

I never said they weren't bad then either. Frankly, they could make the machine non-accessible and still have it be reliable. The 2009-2011 iMacs were neither accessible nor reliable. In the case of the new 21.5" iMac, it seems as though all of the problems that would contribute to poor reliability have been resolved, albeit, at the cost of using laptop components in places where desktop components were previously used.

For a desktop at that price point, much like the Mac mini, this makes for a poor expenditure of money; paying a premium for slower hardware. But in the $600-1700 range and for those that want a Mac desktop, but won't use it for anything crazy intense (like serious video editing, rendering or gaming), the only options are Mac mini or 21.5" iMac. And frankly, for the various clients that I consult with, I'm glad that the 21.5" iMac is now a reliable option.

For those that will never need to access their hardware, the fact that these machines are not user-accessible is not a problem. But for me, I want to maximize the life of the machine. If my hard drive dies outside of AppleCare, I don't want to be stuck having no choice but to go with an Apple OEM drive. That's costly! Luckily, on the Mac I do own, if my hard drive dies outside of AppleCare, I can buy my own replacement drive and likely have it be a larger drive than what I originally started out with.

 

[7709876]

Um, why is it something Apple should not have done? It's not clear to me. It's actually quite the opposite for me. I thought it was obvious they would try and make it thinner.

It's called the evolution of technology. It will continue to get thinner. Just like ALL other tech on the market including computers. We certainly haven't reached a thin threshold yet. In fact, I'd say we are a long way off it.

I have no problem with Apple reducing the size of the iMac as long as they don't have to sacrifice functionality to do so.

It is form over function.

 

[Felasco]

The problem I see with making gadgets ever thinner is...

1) At some point it just becomes silly, as no useful purpose is served by shaving off another fraction of an inch etc.

2) More importantly, it seems like Apple has been having problems getting rid of the heat, an issue I don't recall from the old days when Macs were always in big boxes and towers etc.

My analysis is....

There's already a huge genre of cheap and cheezy computers, they're called Windows/PC.

The only rationale for Apple is to be the quality alternative. Reliability is a key ingredient of quality, and Apple just isn't there. If making Macs a tiny bit slimmer negatively impacts reliability in any way whatsoever, I vote it's a mistake.

Macs are already cool, that's not a problem. Zillions of folks complaining about broken stuff is.

 

[CoreyLahey]

If you did, you'd quickly realize that an iMac is a terrible deal and that for the price of a 27" iMac that is respectable for gaming (both in Windows and in OS X) you could buy an entry level non-retina 15" MacBook Pro and have enough left over to build a PC tower that is just as powerful as said 27" iMac would've been.

I think this depends on individual wants and needs. If I went the described route, I'd end up with a laptop I don't need and a gaming PC without monitor.

Also, in comparison to other AIOs, the iMac is the best value for me and runs OSX on top. It's actually the only AIO I would ever consider, I'd rather build my own tower than buy a "PC" AIO.

Another advantage is, that the iMac will likely keep a better resell value than a gaming PC, which comes in handy when I want to upgrade. If I spent $1,500 on a gaming desktop today, how much can I realistically expect to get back for the components in a couple of years? I think I will lose less money on an iMac, depending on the time of reselling of course.

That said, it is a big investment and I completely understand why for some people an iMac does not make sense. If somebody wanted a computer ONLY for gaming and money is a decisive factor, I definitely wouldn't recommend an iMac at all.

----------

2) More importantly, it seems like Apple has been having problems getting rid of the heat, an issue I don't recall from the old days when Macs were always in big boxes and towers etc.

Where are you getting this from, could you explain please?

 

[CoreyLahey]

There's already a huge genre of cheap and cheezy computers, they're called Windows/PC.

That comment was a bit obsolete and very untrue in my opinion ; )

 

[joe-h2o]

If you did, you'd quickly realize that an iMac is a terrible deal and that for the price of a 27" iMac that is respectable for gaming (both in Windows and in OS X) you could buy an entry level non-retina 15" MacBook Pro and have enough left over to build a PC tower that is just as powerful as said 27" iMac would've been.

I'm sorry, but what are you smoking and where can I get it?

The entry level 15" MBP is $1800. A 27" iMac with the i7 and 680MX GPU is $2349 (assume you'll do RAM yourself, although 8GB base is not bad).

So, subtracting those we get $549 left over, to spend on a machine that is "just as powerful as the 27" iMac would have been".

The i7 3770 in that 27" iMac is $299 on its own from newegg (although free shipping!). That doesn't leave much over for the case, motherboard, GPU, PSU, 8GB RAM, and crucially, a 27" 2560x1440p IPS panel. Even if you try and weasel out of the LCD panel, as many people do when trying to compare to the iMac, you are not going to build a comparable machine for $549.

Also, what am I meant to do with a base 15" MBP? What a waste of $1800 - I have no need for a laptop, let alone a large one like a 15" MBP.

 

[TacticalDesire]

9/10 I prefer PC's for everything and while I don't hate OSX, I'll never completely switch to mac. But even I'm keeping on eye on the new iMac. I love the design. It'd be a nice machine for casual use while I use my PC Desktops for more serious work.

 

[comatose81]

It's time to realize that Apple isn't after power users with the iMac. People who whine about specs and upgradeability are not the target market. Get over yourselves.

This type of computer is 92% design, 7.8% screen quality, and 0.2% specs.

 

[Deanobear]

It's time to realize that Apple isn't after power users with the iMac. People who whine about specs and upgradeability are not the target market. Get over yourselves.

This type of computer is 92% design, 7.8% screen quality, and 0.2% specs.

I couldn't agree more, I bought a 27" iMac loaded to the hilt, 3tb fusion drive, i7, 32gb ram - because I wanted "pretty" - and I wanted something that I don't have to upgrade, open, and worry about it's longevity. I bought a high end AIO from HP a few months back to tide me over while waiting for the new iMacs to arrive - let me say - Windows 8 is ugly, it makes Jocelyn Wildenstein look like a princess, it goes into different modes for different apps - if my Linux box, that's been faithful through it's constant upgrades, both hardware and software hadn't got the Hershey Squirts, I'd still be using it until my Mac arrives. I've waited 25 years to buy a Mac ... loved OS8, OS9 and am very familar with OSX - those who are whinging and whining about the new iMac - you're not Apples' target customer base for this particular machine - wait for the new MacPro so you can buy the cheapest model and then install everything you want. My 2 cents worth

 

[Roller]

...it makes Jocelyn Wildenstein look like a princess

I had to look that one up. Thanks. Now I'm either not going to sleep or will have nightmares.

Seriously, though, I agree with you. The iMac has never been about expandability or high-end specs. You'll always be able to do more with a Hackintosh or Mac Pro at the expense of more work and higher cost, respectively. Still, the 27" loaded iMac won't be a slouch.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think this depends on individual wants and needs. If I went the described route, I'd end up with a laptop I don't need and a gaming PC without monitor.

Also, in comparison to other AIOs, the iMac is the best value for me and runs OSX on top. It's actually the only AIO I would ever consider, I'd rather build my own tower than buy a "PC" AIO.

Another advantage is, that the iMac will likely keep a better resell value than a gaming PC, which comes in handy when I want to upgrade. If I spent $1,500 on a gaming desktop today, how much can I realistically expect to get back for the components in a couple of years? I think I will lose less money on an iMac, depending on the time of reselling of course.

That said, it is a big investment and I completely understand why for some people an iMac does not make sense. If somebody wanted a computer ONLY for gaming and money is a decisive factor, I definitely wouldn't recommend an iMac at all.

You're arguing that a computer that retains its value better will make it cost-effective to later sell and upgrade, whereas I'm arguing that a computer that is actually upgradable is will make it cost-effective to just upgrade. I won't assert that any one of us is more right than the other in this case, but I will say that selling your old computer towards a new one is much more of a pain in the ass than opening up your tower and replacing the one or two parts that you want upgraded.

Where are you getting this from, could you explain please?

2009-2011 iMacs have long since had heating issues and have been largely unreliable. Working at an AASP, I have seen plenty of iMacs come through the door with these issues. Similarly even after powering on work computers (some of which are iMacs), they get hot to the touch fairly quickly.

I'm sorry, but what are you smoking and where can I get it?

The entry level 15" MBP is $1800. A 27" iMac with the i7 and 680MX GPU is $2349 (assume you'll do RAM yourself, although 8GB base is not bad).

So, subtracting those we get $549 left over, to spend on a machine that is "just as powerful as the 27" iMac would have been".

The i7 3770 in that 27" iMac is $299 on its own from newegg (although free shipping!). That doesn't leave much over for the case, motherboard, GPU, PSU, 8GB RAM, and crucially, a 27" 2560x1440p IPS panel. Even if you try and weasel out of the LCD panel, as many people do when trying to compare to the iMac, you are not going to build a comparable machine for $549.

Also, what am I meant to do with a base 15" MBP? What a waste of $1800 - I have no need for a laptop, let alone a large one like a 15" MBP.

First off, anyone buying sensibly doesn't pay $1800 for the baseline MacBook Pro, they pay $1700 due to the academic discount, WHICH IS OPEN TO ANYONE (I'm not a student and I definitely bought my current Mac that way). Secondly, who said anything about an i7 iMac? Thirdly, how many people buying 27" iMacs actually need a 27" 2560x1440 IPS panel and are not buying the 27" iMac only because that's the only desktop Mac option out there today with respectable desktop-calibur graphics and with a 3TB internal drive? Frankly, if Apple offered the choice of a lower-resolution 27" display with a cheaper price tag, you'd see far fewer people buying the display they currently offer. Anyway, I digress. My point is that for the guts inside the iMac, it's a poor deal. If you want to nitpick at my sloppy job of quoting things sold at a comparable price, that's fine.

 

[Alameda]

This is a long thread, but my opinion of the new iMacs is that Apple just got it wrong.

These new models have just a single innovation: They're thin. I don't see how that makes them any better.

 

[53x12]

My point is that for the guts inside the iMac, it's a poor deal. If you want to nitpick at my sloppy job of quoting things sold at a comparable price, that's fine.

Which makes me wonder if the new Mini offers a better deal except for no dedicated GPU.

 

[bill phillips]

ive come to the realization that theres two simple reasons for the hate 1...their pc users who cant afford an apple and therefore try to make the rest of us feel like were over paying suckers for doing so...or 2....their previous generation iMac users who feel the need to have the next best thing every year but cant afford it and hate on those that do...That simple guys.

 

[53x12]

ive come to the realization that theres two simple reasons for the hate 1...their pc users who cant afford an apple and therefore try to make the rest of us feel like were over paying suckers for doing so...or 2....their previous generation iMac users who feel the need to have the next best thing every year but cant afford it and hate on those that do...That simple guys.

Huh?

 

[bill phillips]

Huh?

sorry 53x12.. wasnt responding to you directly. Just responding to the thread about why so many people are hating on the new mac

 

[Chihawk725]

This is a long thread, but my opinion of the new iMacs is that Apple just got it right.

These new models have many innovations: They're thin. Being a grad student, portability is great but I prefer the size and power of a mobile desktop/ipad combo to a macbook and this design is more aesthetically pleasing. They have better specs than last years model. more base ram, fusion and faster cpu/gpu are showing about a 25% boost in performance. They run cooler and quieter. Every review has said this and I have noticed it on my own new iMac. The screen is a vast improvement. Plasma deposition and direct lamination have created a screen with much less glare and a feeling that the objects on screen are literally right in front of you increasing clarity.

How many more advancements can a company make since last years model?? I am actually amazed at all of the improvements they were able to make.

 

[macuserpl]

I hate it only because of this long delivery time

 

[Hexley]

I hate it only because of this long delivery time

That and the lack of FW800 port. 2012 Mac Pro, Mac mini and MBPro still has this port and they have far less space too.

 

[Alameda]

This is a long thread, but my opinion of the new iMacs is that Apple just got it right.

These new models have many innovations: They're thin. Being a grad student, portability is great but I prefer the size and power of a mobile desktop/ipad combo to a macbook and this design is more aesthetically pleasing. They have better specs than last years model. more base ram, fusion and faster cpu/gpu are showing about a 25% boost in performance. They run cooler and quieter. Every review has said this and I have noticed it on my own new iMac. The screen is a vast improvement. Plasma deposition and direct lamination have created a screen with much less glare and a feeling that the objects on screen are literally right in front of you increasing clarity.

I'm glad to see your positive review. Maybe I was too quick to judge it. I saw Apple's intro, and all they spoke about was its thinness. It's nice, but not all that important to me.

The fact that the system is faster is mostly Intel's doing, but I'll grant that if they came up with better screen technology, that's great.

There's always negative feedback from the PC-crowd, but I think there's a sizeable population of people who were hoping for something either more innovative or less expensive. In my opinion, putting the development resources into thin-ness was a mistake, as I'd rather pay a little less or get some other, useful feature. Lots of people want a powerful Mac desktop.

I think that, from the perspective of the investment community, it was hoped that they'd have a $700 or $800 laptop for the Xmas season, rather than a $1,700 laptop. But maybe with Apple's in-store support infrastructure costs, it's not practical. Same with the iMac -- Apple is a very famous company now, and by missing out on offerings at key price points, some feel they're leaving money on the table.