Wow disappointing!

[MrTSolar]

You post an example of SSD being 5 times more expense than a HDD.

Apple will charge for value and cost. A 1Tb SSD is both much more expensive and much more valuable to the customer.

If you need large amount of local storage, Apple will charge you a lot and you can't win this.

The $28 drive is on clearance (we bought those same drives at my previous job, and they definitely were NOT $28). They go for $159 used. If 1 TB HDDs were that cheap, cloud storage would be a thing of the past.

What I was comparing is the top right SSD to the HDD in the bottom left, and just for fun, even the NVME SSD in the bottom right.

A MyCloud Duo would be more valuable than increasing the storage in a new Mac. That gives me best of everything since it is cheaper storage that behaves like a cloud service, but everything is stored at home. Also, since it’s a pair of drives in RAID, you’re protected from a single drive failure.

 

[KeithJenner]

What we don't know is what the pricing would be if Apple did start with 512gb (as an example) rather than 256gb.

Of course, what we would like is for them to just move everything along a step. I'd rather they should go for 2TB on every Mac at the current 256gb starting price.

Of course, we all (I assume) know that wouldn't happen. Apples general pricing is a completely different subject, one that I am certainly not going to defend.

If they did, for example start at 512gb then I'm not convinced that they would increase the basic models price by much, as they want those sales (I imagine they are amongst the most popular models).

If I had to guess then I would say that likely I would have ended up paying more for my 2TB model as they would increase the increments. Same for those who want 1TB etc.

One thing we know for sure is that Apple aren't going to leave that profit on the table. They will get it somehow or other.

 

[hans1972]

A lot of people have Plex or their own music libraries. Not everyone loves to hand over all their money to Apple for simply enjoying music. I have iCloud because it came with my iMac, but I don’t use it. I have to use a Mac to work with designers at work.

Very few people run a Plex server and even less use an iMac for such a task. Plex requires a lot of storage and using SSD for such low latency need is expensive. They should use a NAS and even run the Plex server on the NAS.

I have my own music library from ripped CDs and piracy. But I subscribe to Apple Music so it is stored in the Cloud so I don't need to have a local copy on my Mac all the time. If I need to play some particular song which is not local to my Mac, Music downloads it automatically.

Again, regular users are embracing streaming and cloud services in greater numbers everyday.
For someone like you it means you'll find Apple's products and services to become more and more unfriendly to you.

You might find yourself in a position very soon where you have to choose between paying more money to Apple to get larger SSDs or move to Windows.

 

[MrTSolar]

Besides, I find it ridiculous that I can get twice the storage for half the price with an external USB-C SSD, and that’s with paying for a cable, external enclosure, and a second storage controller. Actually, on the higher end iMac which starts with 512 GB of storage, bumping it to 1 TB is $200 and 2 TB is $600. The 2 TB drive below is $250, and the 1 TB version is $105. A pack of adhesive pads to stick it to the back of the iMac is under $5. Combine that with a symbolically linked home folder and you’re set.

Crucial X6 2TB Portable SSD USB 3.2 - USB-C - Newegg.com

Buy Crucial X6 2TB Portable SSD - Up to 800 MB/s - USB 3.2 - External Solid State Drive, USB-C - CT2000X6SSD9 with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

 

[hans1972]

No RAM increase on an iMac in 9 years and storage a quarter of its 2019 model.

In 2019 a 4k 21" iMac cost $1299 and came with SD port, Thunderbolt ports, ethernet port, 4 x USB 3 ports, 8GB Ram and 1TB storage.

In 2021 the corresponding model features no USB A ports, no ethernet port, no SD port and a quarter of the storage.

If you spec it up correspondingly the 'entry level' iMac is now $1729 - that's a $430 increase.

it's not okay and they should be taken to task about it - especially by the media who's silence on the matter is deafening.

You are not paying for storage capacity when it comes to SSDs. You are paying for the extremely high increase in random reads and writes which makes all Macs and PCs much faster in most use cases.

The 2019 iMac 4K with a 256Gb SSD was $1499 when released. They reduced the price to $1299 in 2020.

The 2021 iMac 4.5k is $1299 or $1329 if you want Ethernet.

Basically a price reduction since 2019 and approx. the same price as last year.

With the new iMac you get:

• Faster CPU
• Faster GPU
• Faster SSD
• Bigger screen in a smaller package
• Higher resolution screen
• Better screen colours
• Lighter computer
• Almost silent computer
• Wifi 6
• Bluetooth 5.0
• 2 Thunderbolt / USB4 ports with USB-C connector

You loose:

• 4 USB3 ports with USB-A connector
• SDXC SD Card
• Ethernet (if you're not willing to pay $30)

 

[JazzyGB1]

You are not paying for storage capacity when it comes to SSDs. You are paying for the extremely high increase in random reads and writes which makes all Macs and PCs much faster in most use cases.

The 2019 iMac 4K with a 256Gb SSD was $1499 when released. They reduced the price to $1299 in 2020.

The 2021 iMac 4.5k is $1299 or $1329 if you want Ethernet.

Basically a price reduction since 2019 and approx. the same price as last year.

With the new iMac you get:

• Faster CPU
• Faster GPU
• Faster SSD
• Bigger screen in a smaller package
• Higher resolution screen
• Better screen colours
• Lighter computer
• Almost silent computer
• Wifi 6
• Bluetooth 5.0
• 2 Thunderbolt / USB4 ports with USB-C connector

You loose:

• 4 USB3 ports with USB-A connector
• SDXC SD Card
• Ethernet (if you're not willing to pay $30)

Well yes every new computer is faster than the model it replaces - no one would buy a slower one!
Same goes for the updated bluetooth & Wi-fi, that s just natural evolution of components.
The weight is basically irrelevant, as is the overall size - it's a a desktop, the screen resolution is no higher than the 4k screen on the 21" model.
Yes the screen is larger and that's the biggest upgrade compared to the one it replaced.
That said, you obviously don't agree and that's why Apple continues to take the piss, so congratulations you win!
Just as well, as you struggle to spell lose!

 

[ADGrant]

Agree - the Intel iMacs have been the slowest, hottest, fan spinning, beach ball bouncing Mac with the terrible spinning hard drives since my 2012 and currently my 2019 which still has the spinning HDD....

Can wait - 7 days to pre-order a blue M1 iMac !

My 2020 Intel iMac does not have a spinning HDD and it doesn't get that hot in normal use. I don't often see the beach ball either.

 

[ADGrant]

Besides, I find it ridiculous that I can get twice the storage for half the price with an external USB-C SSD, and that’s with paying for a cable, external enclosure, and a second storage controller. Actually, on the higher end iMac which starts with 512 GB of storage, bumping it to 1 TB is $200 and 2 TB is $600. The 2 TB drive below is $250, and the 1 TB version is $105. A pack of adhesive pads to stick it to the back of the iMac is under $5. Combine that with a symbolically linked home folder and you’re set.

Crucial X6 2TB Portable SSD USB 3.2 - USB-C - Newegg.com

Buy Crucial X6 2TB Portable SSD - Up to 800 MB/s - USB 3.2 - External Solid State Drive, USB-C - CT2000X6SSD9 with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

Using an SSD via USB-C will be much slower than the internal drive of the same size.

 

[MrTSolar]

Using an SSD via USB-C will be much slower than the internal drive of the same size.

Faster than a spinning disk or constantly downloading my files from iCloud, which is where I’m at with my 512 GB MBA.

 

[ADGrant]

Faster than a spinning disk or constantly downloading my files from iCloud, which is where I’m at with my 512 GB MBA.

Spinning disks are no longer an option on Macs (unless you buy that old 21.5" still being sold for some reason). Personally I wouldn't buy a 512GB Mac, I have a 2TB internal SSD in my current Mac.

 

[fishkorp]

Besides, I find it ridiculous that I can get twice the storage for half the price with an external USB-C SSD, and that’s with paying for a cable, external enclosure, and a second storage controller. Actually, on the higher end iMac which starts with 512 GB of storage, bumping it to 1 TB is $200 and 2 TB is $600. The 2 TB drive below is $250, and the 1 TB version is $105. A pack of adhesive pads to stick it to the back of the iMac is under $5. Combine that with a symbolically linked home folder and you’re set.

Crucial X6 2TB Portable SSD USB 3.2 - USB-C - Newegg.com

Buy Crucial X6 2TB Portable SSD - Up to 800 MB/s - USB 3.2 - External Solid State Drive, USB-C - CT2000X6SSD9 with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

From a pure capacity perspective, sure. But not speed and performance. The closest drive that matches the M1 Machines read/write speeds (that I’ve seen) is the Samsung X5 thunderbolt drive. And a 2TB drive is $550, 1TB is $350. If you want to match what is inside, it’s going to cost the same or more. You’re never going to get even close to the same speeds using USB3.x

 

[MrTSolar]

That may be true, but I don’t have an M1 machine. I don’t need blistering speed, but I want something faster than a spinning disk that won’t wear out in 3 years. Optimized storage by dumping things off to iCloud doesn’t help either with my unreliable 5G internet connection.

And I’m sure there are others in the same position: they need local storage that’s decently fast, but paying $400 more for a desktop computer to gain $100-$150 worth of storage space just isn‘t worth it. There’s no way I was going to buy a MacBook Air for more than $2,000. Even at $1,500 I think I still over-paid for a machine that purposefully overheats.

 

[DanTSX]

Well, yes every new computer is faster than the model it replaces - no one would buy a slower one!
The same goes for the updated bluetooth & Wi-fi. That is just a natural evolution of it’s components.
The weight is basically irrelevant, as is the overall size. It is a desktop, the screen resolution is no higher than the 4k screen on the 21" model.
Yes the screen is larger and that's the biggest upgrade compared to the one it replaced.
That said, you obviously don't agree and that's why Apple continues to take the piss. So, congratulations you win!
Just as well, as you struggle to spell lose!

The concerns were, and remain relevant. There is no need to insult the person. The RISC processors put the new iMac in a completely different realm of computational efficiency.

 

[4sallypat]

Spinning disks are no longer an option on Macs (unless you buy that old 21.5" still being sold for some reason). Personally I wouldn't buy a 512GB Mac, I have a 2TB internal SSD in my current Mac.

My 2019 21.5" 4K iMac base has the 1TB spinning HDD which is ludicrous considering all other base Macs have SSDs.

So glad to have ordered the M1 iMac base with 256GB of storage since I never use hardly any of the space due to NAS and cloud storage.

 

[hans1972]

Well yes every new computer is faster than the model it replaces - no one would buy a slower one!
Same goes for the updated bluetooth & Wi-fi, that s just natural evolution of components.
The weight is basically irrelevant, as is the overall size - it's a a desktop, the screen resolution is no higher than the 4k screen on the 21" model.
Yes the screen is larger and that's the biggest upgrade compared to the one it replaced.

My post was a rebuttal to your statement "Apple have perniciously been increasing the price of their products and 'hiding' the increase by lowering the spec."

My post showed

• Apple decreased the price from 2019 to 2021 for similar configurations
• Apple increased the specs except for number of ports and connections

The exact opposite of what you claimed.