Does no one care about iMacs anymore? - Page 2

But Apple does appear to be happy with people buying third party external drives that do not match its carefully designed products. External drives that are necessary because Apple does not have a mid sized mid range expandable Mac.

Apple can't have it both ways. If its designs are so important that the monitor must match then it needs to admit that the design is important enough to have an XMac so that its designs aren't hidden behind non matching external drives.

It's not whether the monitor matches that matters to Apple - it's whether they get the profit for selling you a display. If you buy an iMac, that's automatic.

External drives are still only really necessary, for the average user, for Time Machine (or other backup schemes). There isn't enough profit in external hard drives for Apple to care about them, and their aesthetics aren't something Apple is likely to care too much about. That said, a number of manufacturers have designed external hard drives and enclosures specifically to match the Mac 'look' - pretty much anything aluminum will do the trick, and Apple sells several in their retail stores.

The question in my mind is which generates more profit a Mac Mini or an iMac. It isn't all that clear which generates more cash per sale.

Nope! A lot of Mac users have externals simply because they don't have enough internal storage.

Yes and those drives are used in several sways. In the context of this thread I'm not sure what that has to do with the lack of interest in the iMac. I really think Apple does care but they can only launch so many products at a time. Further all hardware needs to be ready to go along with software. Thunderbolt is a clear indicator of a larger than normal update. They will have to rev the motherboard in a major way. Also I'm thinking and discrete GPU will have to be on the mother board as the TB switch needs the Display port lines.

However Apple goes about solving the DP/TB issues will make for interesting iMac discussions in the future. Sandy Bridge alone will not do for an iMac.

The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.


'A lot', in this context, amounts to maybe 5% of the market, especially when we're talking about new purchases. People who bought 2-3 years ago may be bumping up against internal capacity, but some of them are going to decide to just get a new computer and hand the current one down, sell it, or trade it in. The new user, whoever it is, may not need as much storage as the old user.


Not much - I was merely rebutting MacTac's argument that Apple needed to either sell their own external drives or release an Xmac to satisfy their own 'design über alles' ethos.


On that, I think we can agree

Not so sure about the display mark-up. The 21" may be overpriced, but I looked for a 27" LED display on Newegg the other day and Apple's cinema display was actually good value compared to the others. Keep in mind the 2560x1440 resolution.

This I'm not sure about at all. The Mini is basically a Mac Book or old 13" MBP without a screen and keyboard. The price right now is really high considering.

Nah I'd have to say the number is a lot larger than that, even a modest iTunes collection can quickly outstrip the capacity of the drives Apple supplies in its machines. Especially when it isn't all that difficult to use up a 100GB just installing user software these days.


I just took a peak at some info on the new Xeons. In turbo Mode the single core speed of the SB based Xeon will hit almost 4GHz. That is interesting in and of itself as it might indicate a faster GPU is possible in the desktop variants. Still I find ti interesting to speculate about how Apple will support discrete GPU's on future machines with DP/TB ports. It looks like the days of plug in video cards is quickly coming to an end.

That is what I'm thinking, high quality panels are expensive these days. Then you have the issue of assembly costs and support parts. The new Mini really looks like it was overhauled to support mass production.

Of course the 27" displays are expensive, and Apple's Cinema Display is priced competitively, but that doesn't mean they aren't making money on them, just that everybody is making a similar profit on the display.

Apple probably makes $100-200 more on the base iMac than on the mini, and once you buy an iMac, you are more likely to keep buying them when you upgrade, since you no longer have a separate monitor involved in your upgrade decision. You're likely go up a screen size to feel like you are really getting an upgrade (and prices have come down since you bought your last iMac, so it feels like you're getting a great deal).

Also, I think you're overestimating the size of the average user's data. Most users don't have dozens of movies in their iTunes library (like I do), or hundreds and hundreds of ripped CDs, or a bunch of TV shows. My sister is a much more typical user - she has lots of family photos, some video, and some music, but her user folder is around 50GB. She was close to filling her old mini (with a 100GB drive), but the new mini's 320GB has about 250GB free. The friend I sold my unibody aluminum MacBook to thought it was overkill when I installed a 500GB drive for her, since even her mammoth music collection and decent-sized iPhoto library were only around 130GB.

Even the least-savvy user on this forum is more knowledgeable than the average computer user, given that they're actually interested in discussing their computer use on some level. Most people aren't - they just want a computer that works, and does the things they want to do with no drama. They don't have mountains of data - just a bunch of JPEGs from their digital camera, maybe some video, and a selection of their favorite songs from iTunes (and maybe a few ripped CDs, though even that is becoming rarer with every passing day). They don't rip DVDs. They don't shoot RAW photos. They don't have hours and hours of HD video. The don't use Adobe Creative Suite. Their data volumes are nowhere near what you think they are - you, your tech-savvy friends, and I are major outliers.

Some of the low-end models (E3-1200 series-pdf) will have different/better graphics than the mobile or desktop K-series SB cpus (P3000). But those are not the ones that will go in the MP (Xeon E5-2400/2600 series, late 2011), they are very similar to the desktop Core i5/i7-2000 series, with the addition of 4x PCIe lanes (useful for TB) and ECC RAM support. Pricing has yet to be revealed.

Xeon E3-1220 = 3.1GHz 4C/4T Core i5-2400 without integrated graphics (80W)
Xeon E3-1225 = 3.1GHz 4C/4T Core i5-2400 with P3000 graphics (95W)
Xeon E3-1270 = 3.4GHz 4C/8T Core i7-2600 without integrated graphics (80W)
Xeon E3-1275 = 3.4GHz 4C/8T Core i7-2600 with P3000 graphics (95W)

My twisted mind would use those workstation cpus in the iMacs: a 95W model with just integrated graphics, and the 80W with dedicated graphics (even in the 21.5" model). The current 21.5" iMac uses a 73W cpu and 59/64W dedicated gpus, that's up to 137W total, so a 80W cpu + 50/55W dedicated gpu is not impossible. With, of course, a miniDP/TB port.

$1199 21.5" iMac 4C/4T 3.10GHz Xeon E3-1225/P3000 (95W)
$1499 21.5" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6570 (5?W) or similar
$1699 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6670 (63W) or similar
$1999 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.40GHz Xeon E3-1270 (80W) + ATI HD 6750 (86W) or similar
I wouldn't even bother with other cpu options, but an optional 128/256GB SSD blade on ALL models would be nice.

FWIW, I can't wait to see the full specs/prices of the future Xeon E5-2400/2600 series...


I suppose you're talking about the MP (or the likes;-). That one is easy: basic dedicated but on (the mother) board graphics with (hopefully) 2 TB controllers/ports for dual-display and up to 8x PCIe bandwidth. If you need better/different gpus - PCIe cards (sans TB) different icon.

The amount of people in here that are talking about "cloud computing" and wanting it to take over all data storage and getting rid of CD/DVD/Bluray drives scares me. Cloud computing is never going to happen. Its not safe (look at Google's recent "lol we lost a couple hundred thousand peoples email"), privacy issues (other people able to look at all your precious data and those naughty photos you took), and bandwidth issues (which is a major concern now seeing that almost all major ISP's here in the states are imposing bandwidth caps now, let alone Europe's and Canada's ridiculously small caps).

CD/DVD/Bluray drives are not going to be disappearing anytime soon. At the end of the day, they are cheap, versatile, and easy storage medium that can be mass produced in vast numbers. There still used by millions and are still valuable, even more so now with bandwidth caps appearing all over the place.

Even though SSD are fast, there ridiculously expensive for the amount of storage you get, and out of reach by majority of people because of their cost, simply because most people, even if they have the money, don't find it as a great investment. Just to get a decent, 256gb SSD your looking between $500 - $600, compared to $80 for a WD black 7200 rpm 1tb HDD, or even a WD 10000 rpm 600gb drive for $250. There's a reason why regular HDD sell drastically more than SSD. Their performance still doesn't justify the price tag unless you have money to burn. Its the reason why the industry as yet to fully implant SSD into every computer. They will be "optional" and targeted at the enthusiast who have money to burn for a very long time.

The google incident was pretty isolated. Tabloids making it out to be a lot more than it was.

The optical drive is, and should be on its way out (at least for Apple). There are so many alternatives that the average consumer very rarely uses it anyways. For a company that is obsessed with thinning down devices, I can't see the optical drive staying around much longer. It takes up way too much space. There will always be external drives for people who want them.

Maybe, maybe not! I just see a lot more hardware going into an iMac while a Mini is the most feature free PC one can buy.

Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.

Nope not at all. First you are giving members of this forum ore credit than the deserve. Yes there are some here that know the difference between RAM and ROM but honestly most people here are illiterate as far as computers go. Mind you that is not a bad thing. Beyond that many geeks want nothing to do with AppleInsider. In any event your point just doesn't pan out, the forum isn't any richer than the rest of the world when in comes computer savvy.

Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.

That doesn't imply everybody out there has that problem but the point is these are not geeks by any stretch. Just because many can get by with 64GB doesn't mean everybody can. You mention photography, which is a good example as I'm willing to bet that only a few professional photographers even bother to read this forum and would suggest that even fewer amateurs do. Of those that don't read this forum, their disk space demands will vary widely as each person has different interests and different storage habits. So it doesn't pay to group people into tight little niches because we don't fit easily into niches.

Nothing twisted about it at all.

This should highlight to people just how awesome Sandy Bridge is. For those that can wait it is the reason I suggest waiting for the tech to come to Macs. The performance of these machines should be outstanding. That is before we even consider a new dedicated GPU, Thunderbolt or whatever else may get stuffed into the new machines.

We are of like minds here. These would yield extremely fast machines.

Yes that will be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see base clock speeds close to 4GHz.

Well event the iMac has video on a separate card. Well it did have I've not looked inside one in awhile. Mind you this isn't just an Apple issue, I wonder how Intel and the motherboard makers will approach supporting Thunderbolt.

AS to TB ports I need to read up more on the standard but I wonder if they have to support video in every receptacle. For some uses even two TB ports won't be enough. It is actually puzzling what Apple/Intel's intentions are here. For what it does (what we know now) the TB controller chip appears to be massive, which makes me wonder just how many channels the controller can handle.

The idea of a cloud computing environment is interesting buy the reality of the situation really sucks. AS you point out there are multiple negatives. however you mis one important one, it is seldom always available.

Apple can deal with the always available issue but they can deal with some of the others by buying up AT&T. It doesn't have to be Apple either as I'm certain even HP, MS and others see the carriers as a big impediment to future growth.

Yep! I seldom use my drive but there is no denying that CD's are often the cheapest way to a movie. Ripped to you HD disk the quality is just as good and often better than digital downloads.

Mac Book AIRs? SSD's are like every other technology out there, you need to weigh the plus and minuses and then make a buying decision. However the important thing here is that SSD's don't have to be the only solution in a Mac. Apples Blade SSD technology can really make for a much snappier Mac and can be easily coupled with a regular hard disk in an iMac or even a Mini.

For many the performance is worth it. The approach used on the AIRS make very lackluster hardware reasonably capable for many users. Are SSD's high priced, yes but then so are many of Apples computers. That doesn't stop people from retro fitting hardware with SSD's or creating hybrid systems. I was actually very surprised that the new MBP didn't have a couple of Blade SSD slots combined wit a normal disk slot as this is an excellent interim approach to high performance.

This is so true. There is "no" average computer user when it comes to storage space. As they say, "there is nothing wrong with more space, it doesn't hurt." When it comes to disk space, this is so true. I know a family and they burn through disk space like no tomorrow. For some reason, they feel the need to make more than one copy of everything, and then litter them all over the place. When I was cleaning out their computer I was finding copies of photos they took in program files, just sitting there. Spreadsheet files in the photo folder and so on. They would make five copies of a single photo, document file, game installer, application installer, and so on. They saved every single thing they downloaded off the internet, and kept every program they had installed, even if they didn't use it anymore, or never had. There always running low on disk space. I have a friend who is the same way as well. He keeps everything.


When I wrote about SSD, I meant that getting rid of $20 - $30 optical drives and replacing them with $600 - $700 SSD as standard isn't not worth it. For most people, even for quite a few enthusiast, it isn't worth the money yet. That's why I wrote that it will always be an option for enthusiast who need the decrease in boot times and faster write speeds. I have no problem with Apple making it an option, I personally like the fact that I can stick a SSD in my 27 inch iMac if I wanted to, but to replace the $30 at most optical drive with a $700 SSD as standard is kinda stupid.

In a case like this it may very well be worth it, as many see the optical as a waste of space. Especially considering your pricing is way off. A 120GB SSD can be had for around $250 dollars. That isn't bad and cheaper models are available. The point is if such a drive is made into a boot drive with your apps on it, the machine will perform much better.

Is a hybrid system like this a good value? Well that is up to the user. The Mac Book AIRs highlight just how useful solid state tech can be in portables. For many booting off a SSD would equal a new machine.

Only from your perspective.

You jump to an iMac here but you also forget that one issue people have with the iMac is that it has zero room for disk expansion. In this scenario that drive location effectively becomes another drive bay. It could be a big payoff for some users.

Looking towards the future if Apple runs SATA 3 to the optical drive bay it would provide for a better match up to today's SSDs.

There may not be an 'average user', but there is a bell curve distribution, and the current Mac models probably satisfy the storage needs over the next two years for the middle 80% of that curve. Other than the Airs and the marginalized MacBook, no model comes with less than 320GB, with the iMac only having as little as 500GB in the base model (the rest start at 1TB).


You're completely ignoring the people who would never even think about coming to a Mac forum, for any reason. Most people treat their computer like they treat their car - benign neglect until it makes a funny noise, and then they take it to the mechanic (or Genius Bar). Once the problem is 'fixed', they probably don't know any more about what caused the problem than before it happened - they'll just go back to using the computer the same way they have for the last decade, regardless of whether there are new, better ways to do things.


No, I'm just fully aware that my storage needs put me WAY out on the far end of the bell curve. I thought you were in the same sort of situation, but it turns out that your machine is old enough that it came with a small hard drive, so of course you're running out of room. I think your viewpoint is colored by that, and your assumptions feel like they're from a 2009 perspective.

A lot has changed in storage in the last two years. Specifically, hard drive capacity per dollar has continued to grow, with 2.5" drive prices dropping particularly dramatically per GB. At the same time, storage needs for the average user have not been growing at the same pace. There are several reasons for this:

1) Music files are not growing appreciably - they're fundamentally small files, so people need to buy a LOT more music for it to keep pace with storage capacity growth.

2) Photos have stopped growing dramatically in size. The megapixel race has (mercifully) ended, after a few consecutive years of dramatic file size growth, but the last two years have seen photo size stabilize. People have to take a LOT more pictures for photos to stretch their storage needs.

3) Personal video is growing, but only for people who are shooting HD. On the other hand, the need for video storage for movies and TV shows may actually be dropping - streaming and rentals are becoming the default modes for video, so there's not as much need to store movies and other large video files on a permanent basis. Overall, I think this is a wash - a bit more space for personal video, but less for movies and TV.

Put all of that together, and the typical user's storage needs are not growing as fast as storage capacity (on a $/GB basis) continues to grow. Stock computer configurations come with about twice as much storage capacity as they did two years ago, but the typical user doesn't need twice as much storage.

I care about iMacs. I have one. Very serene machine.

SSDs? Very expensive. They'll be mainstream one day. Be nice to have one in the iMac. But given insane prices? Unless the prices are sane 'most' people will opt for HD drives. Not rocket science that.

But Apple are doing a relatively decent job of bringing solid state to the mainstream.

iMac?

Faster quad cores. Across the whole line. Better dedicated GPU...and a price cut.

The latter won't happen. Because people are still buying them at the current prices.

I'll probably get a 6-8 core version in about 2-3 years time...in a sale. When it's performance makes my Core 2 Duo model seem like night and day.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I don't have one at the moment, having purchased my MBP before the upswing in iOS device capability. It is very possible that I might go with a desktop machine the next time around and use iOS devices for my portable needs. I'm not sure if that means an iMac or a Mini though, I'd really like an XMac. Here XMac means a desktop with a discrete GPU and some sort of storage expansion capability.

The prices really aren't that high to day, more expensive yes but not extremely so, at least not here in the USA. Storage capacity is low but that is where hybrid installations are justified.

I look at this like engines in automobiles or trucks. You can spend the extra dollars for the bigger engine if you can justify the expense to yourself. That justification could be power or durability. For many users the considerable difference in performance can put current SSDs in a positive light.

Yes in a very cost effective manner too. For many users the AIRs are an excellent value and demonstrate clearly the value of solid state tech.

One could only hope for a price cut but I suspect just the opposite. With Sandy Bridge we should see a very significant jump in performance, with the improved performance per clock and the potential for very high clock rates we should see the biggest performance jump in years.

Not only that Mac sales are extremely strong relative to the rest of the industry. So Apples only incentive to lower prices is to damage the competition. Knowing Apple we could actually see a price increase.

I honestly think the SB iMacs will have that sort of performance especially if your current iMac is more than a couple if years old. I've looked closely at the new MBPs and estimate that those machines are about 2.5 times the performance of my early 2008 MBP. That is only roughly as I suspect in some manners the new MBPs are a lot faster.

Unfortunately this is not the year for me to satisfy my techno lust.

I'm hoping you and the rest of the forum end up amazed when the new Macs come out. I just hope Apple doesn't try to pull off a lackluster update.

Thunderbolt, same form factor, same screen sizes, Sandy Bridge chips, same RAM/HDD, GPU from the Radeon 6xxx family.

I wish you really were a wizard because I would like an XMac too.

It may look not that much on "paper", but if they can do for the iMac something similar to what they did for the MBP: all 15/17" went from DC 2.40/2.66 to quad-core + ATI 6000 graphics + Thunderbolt at similar prices, it will be significant. Currenty, only the $1999 iMac has a quad-core cpu, and only the 27" models can get a 3rd (SSD) storage device.

If Apple can move all models (or at least the 3 better) to quad-core cpus + a graphics bump, a Thunderbolt port... and offer an optional SSD (blade) on all models, it will change the landscape a lot, especially when the MP will probably not be updated before very late in the year or early next year.

iMacs with quad-core cpus, good graphics, additional internal (and fast) storage, and Thunderbolt, will be capable of effectively replace a lot of the entry-level MPs (except the 6C model) for the very same usages:
- even faster cpus (up to 3.40 vs 3.20)
- up the 16GB RAM
- SSD+HDD internal storage
- external storage thru TB as fast as internal storage on the MP
- "PCie" devices thru TB. Since many PCIe cards are "just" 1x cards (most of AVID's, all Apogee's and Universal Audio's, for example), one will be able to connect up to 4 of those devices at full speed (something you can't even do on a MP with only 3 free slots).

No disrespect to all xMac fans (I was one of them when I was "younger"), but the future iMacs+TB or even the future MM/MMS+TB, cut most of the "reasons" to offer an xMac.

But what Apple could do is a total rework on the Sandy Bridge MP, to keep it relevant (especially the single cpu models).

I don't see that it does. Even though each of us has a slightly different idea on what an XMac should be two things seem to be on everyones wish list.

Internal expansion in an easy open case that is quite a bit smaller than a Mac Pro.
No built in screen.

TB will not correct these short comings on either the iMac or the mini.

Now that everyone is abbreviating Thunderbolt as TB I wonder what marketing genius came up with this name. Last year one of my co workers had TB and we all had to get tested. My skin test was positive but my chest x-ray was clear. I had to take medicines for 9 months to kill the virus in my system before it became active.

Yeah, I didn't get that either. Light Peak sounds a lot cooler too...

And it's already been explained, several times, why that's not going to happen, and why Thunderbolt expansion is going to be your best bet. I'm not saying you shouldn't dream, but the Xmac dream is getting pretty played-out.

Before the quad-core + 16GB 27" iMac hit the scene, I was right there with you, as there really was no substitute for a Mac Pro for certain tasks. I bought the cheapest Mac Pro I could find (the 2GHz 1st-generation model) for just those tasks - things that benefited from more than two cores and more than 4/8GB of RAM.

The quad-core iMacs now accomplish those tasks in a much more modern, integrated fashion. They take up less desk space, they use MUCH less power, kick out much less heat.

If you're anything like me, once you have an iMac, you'll no longer feel that,"I want to upgrade, but I don't need a new monitor" feeling that you think about so much before you get one. It's a unit, plain and simple, and you no longer see the screen as a separate entity. Every time you upgrade, you get a new monitor - simple.

The now-common abbreviation for Thunderbolt is unfortunate, but if I had to guess, I think Light Peak was dropped when the initial roll-out moved away from optical connections. No light in the connection, no light in the name.

ThB or TBolt would do.TB also means 'talkback' in audio-land.

If the next iMac update is gonna be as major as last month's MacbookPro's, it may tick a lot of boxes for me. Just hope that they'll make top spec available with the smaller display as well. If they can do that for the 15" and 17" MBPros, why not for the 21.5" and 27" iMacs?

Still plenty of reason to go with a MacPro, though. No TBolt peripherals on the horizon yet, no dual display support, PCI and internal HDD continue to rule supreme for now. But if TBolt lives up to the hype it may well suffice for me, one day soon.

But what I really hope for, is a $1999 base-spec MacPro with the 3.2 Quad Xeon! \

Or a $2999 6-core...

Or a rackmount MacPro...

It has also been explained more times than I care to count, external expansion is often a poor choice. The issues are pretty straight forward cost, reliability and foot print all suffer. A surprising number of people can not consider the Apple ecosystem with out such hardware available. To put it in business terms, the lack of the right hardware is a drag on Apples earnings.

All well and good if you grok the all in one approach. The fact remains the all in one is a poor choice for many. The problem is the one size fits all approach doesn't actually fit all.

It is sort of like trying to wear one size fits all socks when you have size 15 feet. no matter how stretchy those socks they don't do the job as well as properly sized socks.

There is nothing modern about the current iMacs, it is the same basic platform that has been around for ages. In any event your points are bogus, put the same parts into an XMac and they will use the same power.

Yes simple, if Apple has the type and size monitor you want. Don't mis-interpret me here the iMac is a great platform when it fits the requirement, it is a terrible platform when it doesn't. The problem for Apple is that the Mac Pro is often a worst solution. Thus the growing demand for an XMac.

One feature I wish would come to the iMac and the Mac mini is user replaceable harddrives. It's in the MacBook, MacBook Pro and Mac Pro, but never for the Mini or the iMac. Come on it can't be that hard to do. Just put it by the RAM slots in the iMac.

If this was really the case to any measurable extent, Apple would do something about it. The fact that they haven't suggests that they probably know more about their business than you do. What part of "Apple is succeeding wildly in the market by not emulating the rest of the PC industry" do you not understand?


Apple is not, and will never be, a company that is going to try to hit every market segment with a particular model of Mac - they've been there before, and that way lies inventory madness.

Two simple facts:

1) Apple has OS X

2) Apple is only going to make a limited number of Mac configurations

If you want 1), you will buy some version of 2) (or do a Hackintosh, but the people willing to put up with the pain and uncertainty of that approach are far from Apple's real target market).


The iMac is a form factor that no other manufacturer has been able to duplicate with any success. Why? Because it goes against the licensed-and-cobbled-together ethos of commodity PC companies, where everything is a slave to the slim profit margins of the business. The iMac looks great, it's a very functional, practical design for a wide swath of the market, and it's good value-for-money.

And if they put the same components in an Xmac, Apple has no way of ensuring that they make the money on a display purchase, so the incentive to do it is nonexistent.


Growing demand for an Xmac? No, sorry - shrinking demand for an Xmac is the reality. Just about everyone clamoring for a powerful desktop that isn't a Mac Pro was silenced the minute the late 2009 iMacs were announced.

What size monitor are you looking for that the available choices don't satisfy? Whatever it is, the number of people who won't buy an iMac without that particular size being available probably numbers in the hundreds.

Your best bet going forward is the mini, but you'll have to get over your aversion to external expansion, and hope that Apple decides to make it more powerful. You can stomp your feet all you want, maybe even hold your breath until your face turns blue, but Apple has no interest in making an internally-expandable Mac smaller than the Mac Pro - that is, anything that looks like a mass-market PC. It doesn't fit their business or who they are as a company going forward.

Apple is doing very well with it's laptop line but the results are highly mixed on the desktop. You should realize this at this point.

It is rather silly to point that out because hitting every market segment was never suggested. In fact that would be rather stupid. However leaving a huge hole in you line up is the same thing as giving up on a very large market segment.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion! Further software is useless without the right hardware to run it on.

Which is fine no one asked for an unlimited number of Mac models. In this regards I'm not sure why you try to twist the discussion in such a way. Focus on what is being discussed instead of what your imagination comes up with.

Nope! Where it is a problem I can just run Linux. In some cases I'd rather run Mac OS but it is easier to simply follow the path of least resistance.

Please don't drink the koolaide in public, it makes you look foolish!

By the way the iMac can be good value for the money if it fits the users requirements. I often reccomend the machine when people ask. The point you can't seem to get through your head is that iMac is an extremely poor choice for many users and that Apple has no economical alternatives.

They don't make money on a display purchase with the iMac either. This is an entirely bogus arguement. For that matter they seldom make money on display purchases for the Mini, Mac Pro, AppleTV and even the laptops. Most importantly what Apple us missing is sales to people who want a reasonably priced platform, with a powerful GPU, that supports the display of their choice. You may not think that is significant niche but I simply disagree.

Not at all, the 2009 iMacs offered up nothing to the people seeking a flexible platform for their PC needs. Sadly you seem to want to believe this is all about the CPU, it isn't at all. Interestingly I do believe Apple could turn the iMac around and actually make it more flexible in some ways, however up til now they don't seem to be willing to do so.

This has been mentioned by others but one thing they could do in this regard is to make access to the secondary storage easier with the provision for multiple devices. Today's iMacs are huge devices, Apple has access to the technology to make them at once more powerful and flexible platforms. Instead they seem to focus on making high margin machines that leave a lot to be desired.

Are you even remotely in touch with the greater PC market and the types and variety of screens available? I ask because I can't possibly rationalize your question as their are hundreds of monitors for sale where as iMac gives you two options. See the problem there!

I didn't ask for your advice
I don't have an aversion to external expansion when it makes sense. What I do have is an aversion to hardware that doesn't support the type of flexibility I want. Some things simply belong in the primary chassis.

Sadly if Apple doesn't have a change of heart we will see the Mac Pro going the way of the XServe and other low volume Apple hardware. The writing is pretty much on the wall here as the Pro is a terrible hardware deal beyond the fact that it is simply massive.

As to your concern about mass marjet PCs since when does anything Apple look like the competition? With today's tech the XMac does not need to be huge or in anyway bulky. Think about it we are asking for a desktop machine with a real GPU, internal storage expansion capability and possible a PCI express slot. Apple puts most of that into a laptop. Now granted a desktop would/should user faster desktop parts but intel has a very nice lineup of lower power parts coming that will allow for a rather compact but sound performing XMac.

In a nut shell it is sad that you are so willing to take whatever Apple throws your way. Personally I'm convinced that Apples desktop lineup is slowly going down the tubes. Much of the hardware is neglected in favor of the laptop line up and even when the hardware is touched the updates are uninspired.

That argument is getting weaker all the time. Windows isn't as bad as it used to be. I would love to stay with OSX and am even willing to accept the "Apple tax". But purchasing a computer design that I don't want is something I won't do. Apple has a huge gap between the $699 mini and the $2499 Pro. An all in one doesn't fill that gap.

Apple needs to realize that Windows has closed the gap and some are close to jumping ship to get a computer that has the features they want.

You know, after years and years of people griping about not being able to easily reach certain items on vehicles the automakers finally listened. It is easier now to get to fuses, oil filters, etc. Things that need to be changed out from time to time. other than the Mac Pro Apple has been making its computers harder and harder to get into and reach those things that might need to be changed out from time to time.

And then think about the iMac. Can you imagine a mechanic telling you that you ought to throw out a perfectly good engine because your transmission went out?

Please tell me you didn't just offer Linux as an option for anything but a vanishingly-small portion of the market!


How can you say that Apple doesn't make money on a display purchase with an iMac or MacBook? Apple doesn't give anything away - there is extra profit in an iMac over a mini, and in case you haven't noticed, there's a display in every MacBook, and MacBook margins are pretty healthy. I've already stated why the mini exists (for switchers on a tight budget, or people who don't need more) and why Apple doesn't care about selling displays with Mac Pros (very healthy margins without). MacBook Pros and iMacs are Apple's mass market machines, and they make a healthy profit on every one of them.


I'll cover these with my reply to MacTac below.


Anything that needs space for even one PCIe card and internal storage expansion locks the form factor into a box of some description, and I have not seen any indication that Apple has any interest in selling a consumer PC that is a box any bigger than a mini.

Would such a machine be desirable? Of course! I might even be in the market for it. Would some version of Apple, in some alternate dimension where they didn't have the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, make such a computer? Quite possibly! But not this Apple in this dimension, and continuing to pine for such a machine is tilting at windmills.


Yeah, you and your eight friends go buy Windows boxes. The number of people switching from Mac to Windows is such a small percentage that it's basically a rounding error. The people switching because they really want some sort of box for a computer instead of the elegance of the iMac is even smaller.


I'm sure you thought you had a great analogy there, but it falls apart if you think about it. Sure, some maintenance items on new cars may be located in more convenient spots than they used to be, but just about everything else is now impossible to work on in your own garage - you can't even see the engine in most new cars; all you see is a huge plastic shield over everything. The number of things that are considered 'owner serviceable' on a new car is much, much lower than it was 10-15 years ago.

So, in this case, the iMac is very similar to a modern car - think of the RAM as the oil filter or fuses. Everything else is out of sight and not considered 'user serviceable'. It would, admittedly, be nice if the hard drive was also easy to get at, but Apple hasn't found a way to do that and manufacture and arrange the case to allow it. It's not so different from a modern automobile at all. Instead of the big, loud tower cases that we can open and swap components in and out of to our hearts' content (I built most of my PCs between '96 and '05), we have an elegant, quiet iMac that we can't do much work on ourselves.

Times change, markets change, consumer tastes change. Apple has brought the market to them, and I don't see any indication that they're likely to go back in any way. Everything about the company's products, in fact, says that they will move toward more integration, not less.

Well I'm sure not everyone feels that way. The biggest problem with Windows is the design - aesthetic and technical. Even Windows 7 doesn't really feel right when using it. The filesystem and UI aren't structured logically. The Mac OS is very clearly designed by people adhering to strict Human Interface Guidelines, with only the odd lapse here and there.

Microsoft have improved on their previous efforts but not enough IMO. Apple's best OS decision they made was to throw out the old system entirely and rethink it and Microsoft need to do the same.


I agree with that but from their point of view, they probably have a different perception of what item value is considered 'appliance-level'. These days, you wouldn't expect to service a toaster, microwave oven, kettle etc. You throw it out and get a new one.

While it's much harder to do that with an iMac (sell it for spares/repair), their 3-year warranty softens the blow a little. I think it would be a nice gesture to offer 3-year standard warranty on their iMac and laptop line. They charge $169 for it so if 1/3 of people buy it then why not just add $50 to the cost of every machine and give a 3-year warranty to everyone? if you spend $1200, what's an extra $50 to ensure you get an extra 2-years warranty?

The alternative would be an affordable repair program. Even if Apple had a reasonable price list for repairs e.g if the display is damaged outside warranty, it will be $400 to fix, motherboard $600 or whatever.

The most annoying iMac model for me is the 27" because given the choice, I'd never buy a 27" IPS screen anyway. Almost no consumer would drop $1,000 on a computer screen but to get an 'affordable' quad-core Mac you have to.

The way processors are going, I think it makes sense for Apple to just go with 24" 1080p across the lineup and pull the price of the highest end down by $400-500.

While I agree on the aesthetical bit, I think that technical argument has become moot.

Where OSX scores is efficiency and stability. From all that I have read on the net, Windows 7 offers noticeably better raw performance.

In terms of user experience, no contest. OSX rules with its ease of use, elegance and hassle-free environment.

You know the future of iMac is going to be like a 3 chip design (CPU, GPU, FlashRAM) with a screen, running a cloud computing online apps platform, infact I envisage within a very few short years nearly all computing devices will evolve into this new format.

Hardware is virtually already perfected possibly over-bloated, all that needs to change to open pandoras box is the ISPs constraint on limiting connection speed.
If you haven't already noticed Apple have already bought into and adopted this future.

That means the iMac et al are already set on a fixed path of change along the lines of the macAir as we have already been intimated too, and all that is left is the case of when the next major redesign accures, I reckon that will be possibly 2012 when SSDs become cheap enough to be viable and the momentum of demand takes over.

Of course cloud computing will eventually put an end to desktop peripheral storage devices, only leaving the professional creative (television channels) and service provider (Cloud) markets in need of the "Xmac" (redesigned MacPro) type of PCIe computer.

My games designer son came out with quite a statement the other day having his feet in both camps said there really isn't that much of a divide between MacOS and Windows 7 to decide between today, and he wonders if such large OS systems will be displaced by emerging mobile platforms in virtually all domestic cloud devices, even the iMac.

Count me out of that future. None of this server-side nonsense. The applications I own reside on my machine. The files I own reside on my machine. Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for Cloud.

Hey, Im all for "cloud computing" but I don't think it is going to become as ubiquitous as y'all think. Sure, it'll be helpful in accessing your info across multiple devices....but I don't believe standard storage and hardware will be COMPLETELY replaced.

Sure, I think the optical storage of CDs and DVDs and physical hard drives will be replaced, because they are big and take up space....but not ALL of them will be taken over by the infamous cloud.

SSDs will become cheaper and standard eventually.

CDs and DVDs will go away in time, much like the floppy discs. More people will stream and download movies directly to their devices like they do with music already. More and more software is being downloaded. Future MacBook pros, some say as early as the next big redesign will do away with the optical drive like the MacBook airs have. I think this is totally possible...and inevitable....HOWEVER....I think people are forgetting the small SD cards that have become standard across the Mac line. With the new SDXC sd cards being able to hold a TB of data, they will become the new removable media of choice.

Let's face it, with telecom companies getting rid of unlimited data and going with tiered pricing....NOBODY will want to be locked into relying on wireless access to their data alone!!!

Also, one might not always be in range while traveling....especially abroad to the all powerful "cloud".

So all this talk about being a slave to the cloud is simple fear mongering. Ain't gonna happen. The cloud will become more and more important. YES. And Apple will eventually phase out optical drives and standard hard drives....YES.

But they will be replaced with SSDs and SD cards. The need to store data on physical devices WILL NEVER go away. People need to have that back up and access to their info. Otherwise if their cable goes out, or they arr not within range of wifi or 3G and can't access their data....they are CRAP OUTTA LUCK.

The general public may grumble about losing CDs and DVDs or regular HDs but once they realize SSD drives are better and SD cards save space, they will relax.

But they would REVOLT if they became a slave to the cloud. People already grumble about the iPods, ipads and iPhones being locked out....there ain't no way they would accept their computers, iMacs and macbooks being locked out too. They need that freedom. And anyone who thinks it is going away is mistaken. Changes? Sure. Change is inevitable....but use some common sense. Some things will never go away. :-)

I do think the time is coming to ditch internal disk drives on the iMac and laptops. Those who really care can always buy an external one. Maybe another year or two, but we're definitely almost there.

You already have your Bank and Credit accounts council details electric gas water rates tax medical and census records and a dozen other pertinent things about you accessible online in the clouds, so are you worrying about your diary and photos going missing I'm sure tomorrows security will evolve too and new apps will be designed to work in the cloud environment.
It will be far cheaper not having to buy DVD players and mountains of little used CDs & DVDS and the technical hassle of maintaining proprietary double backup storage with associated electric usage cost at home when you can access all your music films and files from any computer online, there is also more safety in storing on secure server space than on a machine that is more likely to suffer breakdown, get lost or be stolen.
like all new things you'll moan about it at first, then when you see its not such a big deal to change, then you'll just get on and enjoy life.

The first of the next generation cloud machines is already here and selling like hot cakes... The MacAir, just a matter of time before the rest of the Macline follows and then gets into smart TV convergence, Oh thats a whole new ballgame coming to Mac.


their is a misconception about SSDs (Solid State Drive) these cards are brought out to be a plug-in replacement convenience for SATA Hard Disks and unfortunately inherit the limited SATA bottleneck, the next generation of memory cards will be PCIexpress interface based Flash chip memory cards as fast as RAM with a at least 10x speed bump,
SDXC cards are upto 64GBt so far and have 3hrs of HD1080i streaming Video storage capability abiet at a cost today, but like Flash mem chips once they become popular the price will rapidly come down and they will make bluray and all disk media obsolete, but they may also become obsolete themselves by cloud computing, or at least may find a niche requirement for those needing reassurance in an ever changing world we live in,
Cameras & phones will use wi-fi to transfer video and photographs in future so little need for the fledgling SD card.


Your already a slave to buying copious amounts of technology and interconnects to a whole world of profiteering peripherals you didn't know you needed, by comparison surely the Cloud computing experience harkens to set you free of such chains and put the buck back in your pocket to decide where you would prefer to spend it.