Production of Apple's next iMac to begin this month for October launch - report - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkerkay 

Can you tell us why and how a thinner desktop (and I'm not referring to the MacPro) would be advantageous? 

To mount on a wall.

Reduce size of footprint.

May lead to reduced bezel thickness.

Increased portability.

Improved aesthetics.

And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

 

It's a desktop.  This is completely meaningless.

Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another?  Just because it's primary feature isn't portability, that doesn't mean that portability isn't a feature.  Consumers like AIO desktops because they get rid of all the cables, but what does that mean?  It means a portable desktop that doesn't cross the line and become a laptop.  I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 


Apple likes big bezels.

Right.  And we've never seen them change their mind on anything, ever.

I realize the res required to call a 21.5 or 27" display "retina" at the greater viewing distance of a large-screen desktop is lower than for a 15" rMBP - but given the yield problems and supply limits on the screen for that new machine, Apple might still experience "issues" in getting enough high-quality panels - which would still be pretty bleeding edge if not the bloodiest segment - at a cost that won't knock up the iMac's price.  

Price increases are never a good idea in a declining market segment (and I'm referring to desktops overall, not to Apple's absolute sales growth in all segments including healthy iMac sales, i.e., the market may be growing, but "truck" sales aren't keeping up with the overall market where all the real growth has moved to cars and bikes).

On the other hand, Cook promised to pretty much remake the company's lines in 2012 (tho' he's deferred the Pro's makeover into the next year already), and I don't know if Ivy Bridge, double the base RAM (please!), USB 3.0 and available (or standard) SSD drives qualify as any more than a refresh.  So who knows (outside of some at Apple)?

Also, Apple doesn't go crazy with BTO options - and last I knew - there was a utility that would let you use the ODD on another computer on your home of biz net as if it were the ODD on your MBA.  Meaning that if there's NOT a new iMac form factor this year, I'd expect iMac ODD's to survive one more year - mitigating the need for multi-Mac deployments to fret over ODD capability.

Or they might at most offer a choice of a second storage drive where the ODD now goes in the options - which would be spinning platter if the default's SSD and vice-versa is the default drive's a spinner.  However the chassis has an ODD slot, and Johnny Ive would lose sleep over "a slot to nowhere," lolz.....

Anyway, once there IS a real makeover, I'd be shocked to see an ODD in the new machine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brutus009 

 

Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another?  Just because it's primary feature isn't portability, that doesn't mean that portability isn't a feature.  Consumers like AIO desktops because they get rid of all the cables, but what does that mean?  It means a portable desktop that doesn't cross the line and become a laptop.  I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.

I would argue that we have AIO desktops because many people, who didn't necessarily need the performance of a standalone tower, preferred not to see the mess of wires running between the various components (tower & monitor) of a conventional PC configuration. In my opinion, I don't think portability had much to do with it. It's not like the typical household reorganizes where their home office or desk is each year and then thanks their lucky stars that modern AIOs are reasonably portable. Whatever portability AIOs have is the result of the form factor and the flat panel monitor and the significant reduction in both size and weight that occurred. I think we'll agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigpics 

Price increases are never a good idea in a declining market segment (and I'm referring to desktops overall, not to Apple's absolute sales growth in all segments including healthy iMac sales, i.e., the market may be growing, but "truck" sales aren't keeping up with the overall market where all the real growth has moved to cars and bikes).

When has Apple ever bumped the price when introducing Retina screens? iPhone? Nope. iPod? Nope. iPad? Nope. MBP? Nope. Why would you expect one for the iMac when all the evidence suggests otherwise?

And before you say the RMBPs are more expensive, take a cMBP and swap in the SSDs that Apple offers, now compare the price to the RMBP. What do you notice? It is the same or more expensive, and has lower specs on RAM, VRAM, screen tech, and has cheaper speakers. Enough with this nonsense about Retina screens costing more. Apple has historically always absorbed the cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brutus009 

 

To mount on a wall.

Reduce size of footprint.

May lead to reduced bezel thickness.

Increased portability.

Improved aesthetics.

 

And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.

I appreciate your laying out some reasons for thinness on a desk top.   I don't think anyone here would disagree that thinner looks cool, which really is your main point.  The problem that I, Rob5, and others have is whether the compromises made for thinness in the new MBP, where there are additional compelling advantages in terms of weight and portability - are too high a price for improved aesthetics.   I'm going to need at least one CD/DVD burner in the house for some time and it may as well be thrown in the iMac.   Don't need it in my iPad or Air or other portable.  Since I'll keep the desktop around awhile, I'd also not like to have to take it in or have to mail it to Apple to get an upgrade or replacement for RAM or SSD.   Because if you don't have an apple store nearby, you're stuck.   You likely can't replace RAM/drives yourself, and the local shops reportedly will have a hard time servicing the thinner MBPs and probably your thinner iMac.  In summary, don't make me give up useful stuff like internal speakers, optical drives, and the option for user/local shop serviceable RAM/drives for thinness. 

Why give those functions up to hang it on a wall - Really?  How will you swivel it up or down or move it in or out for different viewers?  That's reduced functionality that is also, by the way, wholly inconsistent with your other dubious goal of increased portability.  As someone else noted, that's not much of an advantage for a desktop.   I like reducing the footprint, which really isn't all that big, but couldn't that could be done without making it thinner -  So while I'm all for improved aesthetics that comes with thinness, I'm on the side of maintaining or increasing function.   If the larger screen size of an iMac as compared to MBPs make it possible accommodate continued repairability and function noted above and still be thinner, I'm all for it.   

I am sure the case will be much thinner due to being able to use thinner panels and their new fan design of asymmetrical fans to keep the product quiet that they are using on the MacBookPro Retina.

I wonder when they'll drop the MacMini.  That's due for a Ivy Bridge processor, USB 3, upgrade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 


Yep. By $400. $300 if you consider the SSD.

I'm not sure where you are looking but:

15-inch: 2.3 GHz

• 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
• Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
• 4GB 1600MHz memory
• 500GB 5400-rpm hard drive¹
• Intel HD Graphics 4000
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 512MB of GDDR5 memory
• Built-in battery (7 hours)

Price: 1799$.

SSD Upgrade price: 500$

Total: 2299.

15-inch: 2.3 GHz Retina display

• 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
• Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
• 8GB 1600MHz memory
• 256GB flash storage¹
• Intel HD Graphics 4000
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
• Built-in battery (7 hours)²

Price: 2199$.

15-inch: 2.6 GHz
 

• 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
• Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
• 8GB 1600MHz memory
• 750GB 5400-rpm hard drive¹
• Intel HD Graphics 4000
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
• Built-in battery (7 hours)²

Price: 2199$.

SSD Upgrade price: 900$

Total: 3099.

15-inch: 2.6 GHz Retina display

• 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
• Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
• 8GB 1600MHz memory
• 512GB flash storage¹
• Intel HD Graphics 4000
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
• Built-in battery (7 hours)²

Price: 2799$.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers 

the next generation iMac will have a retina display, proprietary solid state storage, soldered ram, and no optical drive, and be super thin. also just like the MacBook Pro, they will keep the old ones around for the weak.
 

What is the point of having a DESKTOP machine be super slim? Do you really need to save another 5mm of desk space?  Desktops are all about power and storage, they're work horses. Everything else is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brutus009 

 

To mount on a wall.

Reduce size of footprint.

May lead to reduced bezel thickness.

Increased portability.

Improved aesthetics.

 

And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.

None of those matter in the slightest. As the Mac Pro is essentially dead (for now) the iMac needs to be Apple's powerhouse. It should have the biggest and fastest CPUs and GPUs available, and crazy amounts of storage. It needs power above everything.  Also as a desktop it should be moved rarely, if ever. 

If you want portability, by a laptop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 


That's an Apple SSD. Their margins don't count.

Nice of you to read attentively. I explicitly said: "And before you say the RMBPs are more expensive, take a cMBP and swap in the SSDs that Apple offers, now compare the price to the RMBP. What do you notice? It is the same or more expensive, and has lower specs on RAM, VRAM, screen tech, and has cheaper speakers. Enough with this nonsense about Retina screens costing more. Apple has historically always absorbed the cost."

Now, of course it's Apple's price, they are the ones selling you the machine. You can throw in aftermarket SSDs to save cost if you want, but that introduces warranty issues. I'm talking about Apple's offerings not hybrids that include some Apple parts and some third-party parts. So again, if you compare Apple's products and their pricing, Apple does not charge you more for the Retina screen. They might charge you more compared to other vendors for their SSDs and RAM, but that is an entirely separate issue. I'm not asking if Apple has higher prices compared to other vendors. I'm not asking if Apple has higher margins than other vendors. I'm comparing Apples to Apples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Quote:

Originally Posted by johndoe98 

Nice of you to read attentively.

I already addressed that point. You're giving too much leeway to the price there.
Apple tried as hard as they could. And they did a marvelous job. This is as close as they could come to not raising the price. And they did spectacularly. But they raised the price.

Quote:

but that introduces warranty issues.

Nope.

But so far as I can tell the price increase is due to the more expensive Apple RAM and Apple SSDs, it isn't clear how the Retina screen is responsible for the price increase. That's something you haven't explained. It's your conjecture, and it may be sensible, but you didn't really address the point.

As for warranty. You claim it doesn't introduce problems, but the issue is if something were to happen to any of your internal components, could you actually prove it wasn't as a result of your installing third-party upgrades? If you aren't properly grounded when working on the machine, you can short-circuit pretty much any component inside the machine, so the only way to prove that the damage wasn't caused by the upgrade/repair is if Apple was the one to install those upgrades for you. So far as I know, Apple will not install your SSDs or RAM if you bring it in to them. So yes, they could easily deny your warranty claim if they wanted. Will they do so? Probably not, but they could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

You don't think the display with a higher resolution than any ever produced at that size would factor in?

The installation of a third-party hard drive does not void the warranty. That's moot.

Does the higher resolution display factor in? Surely. Can I prove that is what is responsible for the prices of the RMBP? No. It seems just as likely to me that Apple absorbed the costs of these screens so as to push their marketshare as would the alternative, namely, that they decreased their margins on the RAM and SSDs in those machines.

You claim third-party installations, of hard-drives for instance, do not void the warranty, and that the point is moot. Again, that isn't clear to me. Please be patient an explain it. So far as I can tell, if Apple were to deny to provide warranty on your machine, your only resort would be to take Apple to court, and the onus would be on you to demonstrate damages. The first thing an Apple lawyer would ask is if you installed third-party hardware. As soon as you say yes, he/she will follow up and say it is entirely possible that you damaged the components you are requesting warranty coverage for during your installation and that until you can demonstrate that you were not responsible for the hardware failure, they are at liberty to deny your warranty claims. They could easily say as soon as you fulfill that burden (which you won't be able to do) they will happily cover the repair costs.

In short, what this effectively means is that it wasn't the third-party hardware that voided the warranty, but your installation of that hardware and the damage that you caused that voided the warranty. To win your case you have to demonstrate no damage was caused by you during the installation process. I don't see how you could do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jbach67 

I appreciate your laying out some reasons for thinness on a desk top.   I don't think anyone here would disagree that thinner looks cool, which really is your main point.  The problem that I, Rob5, and others have is whether the compromises made for thinness in the new MBP, where there are additional compelling advantages in terms of weight and portability - are too high a price for improved aesthetics.

Well said.  I equally appreciate your thoughtful response.  And I'll admit, I'm a sucker for aesthetics.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by johndoe98 

 

When has Apple ever bumped the price when introducing Retina screens? iPhone? Nope. iPod? Nope. iPad? Nope. MBP? Nope. Why would you expect one for the iMac when all the evidence suggests otherwise?

 

And before you say the RMBPs are more expensive, take a cMBP and swap in the SSDs that Apple offers, now compare the price to the RMBP. What do you notice? It is the same or more expensive, and has lower specs on RAM, VRAM, screen tech, and has cheaper speakers. Enough with this nonsense about Retina screens costing more. Apple has historically always absorbed the cost.

The introduction's a matter of timing - depending on factors in the supply chain I doubt either of us know.  There are "Moore-like" laws applicable to the supply and price of various components that get more economical at varying rates. E.g., battery performance has NOT doubled while declining in price every 18 months as CPU's have, though there have been more improvements of late.  So we're not disagreeing on the "retinization" of more Apple products over time (and HDTV will go 4K in time as well.  It's inevitable in a functioning world tech industry).  Just on when 27" retina screens will fit into the pricing and are readily available in the time frames and volumes they need.  

But you do have to be taken to task (well I'm going to at least) over your assertion that "Apple has historically always absorbed the cost."  

No. Way.  In their main line of business products at least - i.e., personal computers, phones, iPod and iPads, Apple historically (from the beginning to the present) almost never "absorbs the costs" - rather they've chosen to maintain margin over market share.  Which is why their percentage of industry profit, since Jobs returned and refocused the company on mission at least, is always hugely greater than their share of industry sales.  There are exceptions in parts of the supportive ecosystem and some products may be maintained to complete the company's range (e.g., keeping the Pro so that average Mac users know they have a path to using their Apple skill set at the highest level), but basically Apple's DNA is to be a company that makes great widgets and sells them at a very healthy gross margin.

Also despite their cash pile, their percentage of income devoted to R&D lags far behind other firms like MS and other names in the news.  (But that may be because they spend it in a more focused and planful way than most of their competitors which flail about.  I could fill a long post with all of the failures MS has thrown cash at alone.)

Meanwhile it's Amazon that introduced the Fire at or below cost - the old give away the razor to sell blades model that Apple's always eschewed), and Google that announced (or let slip - you decide) that the new Nexus 7 will be sold on its Play store at essentially their cost.  Which has to make the rest of their OEM's as happy as clams.  Clams in a net headed for being cooked at least.   

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
 

Guess we can't know until we get more information. We'll get some when the 13" retina is released and even more by knowing the date that the old style MacBook Pro will be discontinued.

You wouldn't have to… no problem could arise on its own that would have been from hard drive installation mishaps. And if you do have a problem, swap the drive back to stock. Of course if you did cause something and did that, this would be insurance fraud, but then they'd be able to see that you had opened it in the first place.
This is beside the original point, however,

Agreed on both counts (other than that there couldn't be installation mishaps).

PS: how do you respond by splitting up my quotes? I just get your entire message lumped in one go and the response field is below it all. Do quote and /quote tags work like on other forums?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigpics 

But you do have to be taken to task (well I'm going to at least) over your assertion that "Apple has historically always absorbed the cost."  

I was hopping to be taken to task, as I might have learnt something, but then you went on a long explanation that didn't address what I said in any way. So, simply put. Did the iPhone cost more once it had the Retina screen? Did the iPad? I'll leave the RMBP out for now because I don't want to get into the same debate twice in one thread. If it didn't, then I consider that cost absorption.

Just remember that the Thunderbolt that we have is a slowed down version of what it will be when they activate it with an update.

Currently it's copper cables but it wasn't originally called Lightpeak for nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smiles77 

 

Have you ever seen a Retina Display from Apple? Compared it to the previous gen screen? The display on my iPad 3 is worlds better than my 21.5" iMac. It's immediately noticeable on switching between the two.

Yes I agree the iPad3 screen is great for stuff designed to take advantage of it. I use mine to watch the news with the TWC app and the news graphics that they display during show is sh*t. Many TV watching is fed out no ware near HD let alone being retina. Even purchased movies are not great watching on an iPad retina no matter what distance you hold it. I suggest retina IS a marketing gimmick and will be until media content compression and broadband speeds become reality capable of serving such content. Retina is not worth spending any extra money on it yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

Thinnest isn't the only technology that can or should go into a new IMc. The reality is iMacs plateaued years ago when Apple stopped innovating with the machine and set eyes upon laptops.
 

Maybe Apple are already preparing to make iMacs their next floppy/optical drive? ;-)

1. Since 2011 you can noy use as target. Output only. Yes. There are conversion boxes got an i5 2.7. Plent for audio. Saving for new Mac pro. Heard possible 24 cores on 1dye!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Well, I'm forced to use the BBCode editor right now because Huddler doesn't support Safari 6...()

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

I can't believe I'd forgotten how terrible it is, but I can believe it, because my memory's that bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

And do the 2.5" SSDs get speeds comparable to the card-based ones? I can't find anywhere that says anything about those on Apple's site.

• 2012 MBP Retina — Apple 500GB SSD Performance
• OWC 960GB Mercury Electra 3G SSD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

I seriously lug my Mac Pro far more places than I probably should.

October? But I want it nooooowww. ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slang4Art 

I guess this is as good a place as any for technology to plateau. Does everyone else agree to give up on making new things?

This is stupid and unimaginative. The only way to make a stationary machine that you never move better is to minimize its depth? That is a gimmick, not a feature. There are areas where they could improve such displays and computers. You don't even gain back desk space from your suggestion, as the stand will not lose as much physical depth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin 


High-res iMacs implies high-res Cinema displays too, which would require Displayport 1.2 to run and that's coming in 2013 with Redwood Ridge and only pass-through (no chaining). Apple could get an exclusive on the new Thunderbolt controller of course.
There are high-res panels coming:
http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/sharp-aquos-lc-60le636e-p12284/sharp-mass-producing-32-quad-hd-4k-lcd-panel-n24109.html
but some are very expensive:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/
"ViewSonic reps say the VP3280, which will be marketed towards film studios, broadcasters, photographers and any other professionals in need of a compact 4K display, could ship by the end of the year, costing 'about the price of a car'."
They don't say what kind of car, it could be some beat-up old used $500 motor but I suspect they mean a few thousand dollars.
I think Apple is just waiting until Mountain Lion is ready as the desktop release cycle falls into this schedule. Mountain Lion is rumored to arrive July 19th:
http://www.t-gaap.com/2012/6/18/mountain-lion-release-date-july-19-2012
The vacation blackout is July 22nd-29th so new OS, iMac and Mini and Digitimes wrong again. The new iPhone and iOS 6 will arrive in the Fall so I don't see why they'd release desktops at the same time.

They keep changing their claims. The initial claim was that the displayport 1.2 standard was already supported. I figured the imacs and minis would come around mountain lion. If they're coming with standard resolution, the developers do not have yet another issue to address, and the need to space them out is diminished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokenuser 

Sure it can - but not using copper, it needs the fiber based implementation*

And - lo and behold - the Apple gear with TB ports are optical ready ... http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/13/optical-cables-for-thunderbolt-coming-in-2012/

But thats irrelevant. The iMac is an All-in-one device. The display is not connected by a TB port, it is wired into the mobo. For everyone else ... wait for the upgrade to fibre TB cable later this year.

 

* I am trying to find the link that showed the speed of the fibre vs copper TB, but can now only find info suggesting that fibre will allow greater cable runs.

They  are not optical ready in the sense of can take higher bandwidth. The bandwidth is fixed to what you have now. Optical cables can support longer cable lengths. There are a few articles that explain that true optical won't be seen in the first generation of them anyway. The info that it will only support greater cable runs is the correct into. The PCI lanes allocated to the chip and the chip's bandwidth remain the same. I don't know if a switch to PCIe 3 will drop latency, but if bandwidth actually increases somewhere, they will make sure you are aware of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 


Would you happen to know the reason for the migration from vBulletin to Huddler Tech? Seems many are rightfully complaining and I don't read many 'positives'
Haha good one!
Nowhere near as fast as PCIe, I bought one 2 months ago. But don't take my word for it:

• 2012 MBP Retina — Apple 500GB SSD Performance
• OWC 960GB Mercury Electra 3G SSD

Come to think of it; you're probably not comparing SSD vs PCIe but vs soldered cards, like the rMPB...
Do you take that beautiful white table cloth with you as well? lol

I want to mention on these tests since you're comparing the time it takes to execute scripts, it's a weird disk test. Given 64 bit photoshop, those times taper together immensely as you add ram. If I recall correctly, that test uses an image at 8 bits/channel with a 15k height. It's really relatively large. I'm not sure it would be considered medium as very few usage cases go far beyond that resolution. Movie posters are printed at fairly high resolution for their dimensions, and many of those files fall roughly within the medium test. Given that file sizes don't increase very fast, we're approaching  a point where the ssd boost to application performance will no longer exist as it's likely that cost effective ram configurations will catch up to cover much of this. In the past this couldn't be achieved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


If that were true, wouldn't carrying cases for iMacs be a lot more readily available, and a much more common sight? They're available, but I think I've personally seen one, compared to thousands of laptop bags.
I just don't buy portability as a significant reason for the existence of the AIO, I think it's just a bonus rather than design intent for the very few people that would carry around an iMac enough to justify a special design. I need something with good evidence to show that it's not the simplicity. With an iMac, you can fully operate using only one cord on the desk, for power. With a tower system, you have three power cords, tower, monitor and speakers, and you have at least three data cords, for monitor and two speakers. Then you have at least for four large devices: two speakers (three if a subwoofer is involved), a monitor and a tower. Given that towers often target a budget market, you also generally have cords for a mouse and keyboard.

I'm still not a fan of the imac. I'd probably transport an external display + macbook pro  if I had to take something on a plane to work elsewhere:D. The 17" is about as small as I can deal with if I need a fair amount of visual real estate. Otherwise I tend to go for a 24". The 24" displays that we have currently, the older 21" lcds, and the old old 21" crts are roughly the same height. I find it difficult to go below that in any given application unless it's something where I can clean up the ui and basically rely solely on hotkeys, but I'm weird like that.