Supply of Apple's 27" iMac drying up as Ivy Bridge upgrade awaits - Page 2

 

Yet none but one size have Retina quality, the one that is doubled in pixel resolution. All the other options are noticeably inferior even if they are better than prior generation screens. I'd love to use a higher screen real estate on my RMBP, but the other options are terrible in comparison. If next year they release a version with Retina at 1680x1050 (or 3360x2100), I'll probably upgrade my machine.

Ahhh, that explains it. I took my busted up old lemon of an iMac (24" 2008 model, had a month of Apple Care left) into the Apple Store a couple weeks ago for repairs(3rd time) and they gave me a brand new 27" 3.1ghz i5. I guess I won't be upgrading for a while, but an NVidia graphics chip would be nice. 

I'm not willing to downsize my resolution and work space. I'm currently on a regular 1920 x 1080 27" monitor, and if Apple came out with a 3360x2100 retina monitor, that would be terrible, because it would be intended to be used at 1680 x 1050, which is far worse than what most people currently use. Sure, things will look sharper and icons will look great, but if the effective work space shrinks, then that's not a good thing, at least in my opinion.

 

I find it strange that Apple doesn't allow the new retina Macbook to be used at it's full resolution, if that's what somebody wants. I read about some work around, but Apple should have that option built in.

 

Mmmm... FCP X had its first anniversary last week... Most were expecting a new release... In fact Apple presented at the LA FCPUG -- but, no new version...

 

Right now, a loaded iMac 27 is a Top (or very good) machine for FCP X (the Mac Pro has more cores and more RAM, but no Thunderbolt). 

 

 

This is my machine (I screwed up and failed to double video RAM) and it screams.  I use Thunderbolt to attach 2 Promise Pegasus RAIDS and an Apple Cinema Display.

 

I wonder if a new iMac 27" will add features (More RAM, CPU cores, GPU cores) to mollify high end video editors until a new Mac Pro comes out in 2013.

 

 

Oddly, I usually run FCP X in a reduced window so I can switch among other windows on the desktop -- I prefer this to to a second monitor, as I can switch between full screen and this with a single click.  My [soon to be] 73-year-eyes are failing and a single monitor right in front of me works better than a monitor on the side.  I use a command-option-8 loupe to magnify the controls when needed!

 

Here's my setup:

 

 

I'm not sure what a command-option-8 loupe is, but if you use a Magic Trackpad, you can just hit command and then do a two finger swipe up to magnify the entire screen, very simple and easy to use.

Oh, they took that away?

 

All of my machines are still on Snow Leopard. Lion wasn't appealing enough for me, though I will probably upgrade to Mountain Lion when that comes out.

 

Edit - Scratch that, I just realized that one of my machines, my Macbook is not compatible with Mountain Lion, so Snow Leopard for life it is!

Actually, the Mac has more freedom in the resolution increase. Today's iMac could easily go from 2560x1440 to 2560x1600 (that's 16:9 to 16:10 like the older iMacs). Then 3200x2000 would be 16:10 or Quad the resolution of the cheap 1600x900 displays (which I never liked) to 3200x1800.

Though, I'm only really talking about screen ratio changes that OS X has more freedom with for obvious reasons.

If the iMac were to use 3200x1800 resolution, I suppose it could do Retina for a 1600x900 sized desktop (too small) and do scaling for larger desktops, but I think people would rather just use the full 3200x1800 (or 3200x2000; 16:10 ratio) than any HiDPI resolutions. So the iMac will have to have at least 1.5 times the linear resolution or 3840x2160 (Quad Full HD) and scale using that resolution.

But ideally, 5120x2880 would be best so it can be Retina at 2560x1440 desktop space, and then perhaps do scaling to even higher desktop spaces if the GPU can handle it! Remember, for it to do a 3200x1800 desktop on a 5120x2880 resolution, it would have to double the screen resolution to 6400x3600 and scale down to the native 5120x2880 display. (Much like the current Retina MacBook Pro doubles a 1920x1200 desktop to 3840x2400 then scales it down to the native 2880x1800 display)

My iMac is set at 3200x1800 with SwitchResX4 right now, and the desktop area is very nice, and it's readable, but the native resolution is still only 2560x1440, so it doesn't look as smooth. But a 3200x1800 sized desktop with a 5120x2880 display would look very nice indeed. I'm sure a desktop GPU can handle 6400x3200 scaling, but not 7680x4320 (Quad Full HD Retina Desktop – 3840x2160, with 16 times Full HD actual resolution) and scale that down to the native 5120x2880 display.

My old MacBook Pro is not compatible with Mountain Lion, but it can run Lion. It has been for the past year just fine. I would upgrade your MacBook to Lion, especially since it's been out for almost a year now. Snow Leopard is solid, but it is really looking old, and soon you'll need at least Lion to do a lot, not to mention todays iCloud.

 

Yeah, that is useful too!

 

But, sometimes I just want to zoom in a small area of the screen, say for a small control.  If you zoom the entire screen, you need to pan around to see everything -- this way you see everything and magnify what you want:

 

Below are my settings on latest Lion release. You can see the magnifying loupe in the lower right corner (it follows the cursor).  For some reason, the loupe doesn't zoom on the settings window capture with SnapzPro.  Though, if you look at my prior post you can see the loupe in the left center of the screen.

 

• I don't miss Thunderbolt on my MP; it has HDD bays and PCI slots anyway.
• Would the 2GB video ram make a noticeable difference?
• CIA (Congrats in advance)
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by "Apple 
  [" url="/t/151090/supply-of-apples-27-imac-drying-up-as-ivy-bridge-upgrade-awaits/40#post_2140416"]
  I'm not sure what a command-option-8 loupe is, but if you use a Magic Trackpad, you can just hit command and then do a two finger swipe up to magnify the entire screen, very simple and easy to use.
  
  I use Ctrl + 1-finger-up-swipe-on-MagicMouse to zoom in. Actually, I don't, because it is hideous indeed.
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
  
  Not in Mountain Lion. And it looked hideous, anyway.

Very glad I made someone laugh with my very first post on this forum. I hope it happens again. Cheers!

So, if iMac supplies are drying up, there's no way the updated model won't arrive until October like always-wrong Digitimes claimed earlier this week, right?

So tired of the dueling retinal calculations that appear with each successive iMac update rumor.   To me, seeing is believing.   Having compared the current iMac with the retinal mbp, I'm indifferent to whether they have the option soon or next year. And most sites and apps aren't really ready for that future just yet anyway.   Unless there are some compelling reasons for the extra cost that are more stunning than I've seen so far, I can pass.   But I understand that many would like to go there sooner. 

 

That said, I am interested in whether a spec upgrade option appears sooner (i.e. late this month) or as late as October (earlier rumor).   And why so late.  In the Spring, the rumors said June for iMacs, and that seemed late.    One possible reason is the availability of the Gforce 680;  supplies were constrained for the latter in June, but they seem to be out there now.   The desktop ivy bridges have been around since late April.   So it is a matter of selling out the current inventory (as suggested by this rumor thread) during back to school and ramping enough enough production of new ones.   Why not late July/early August for that?  Another, less likely reason to wait till October is to release a retinal option (and I certainly hope we are talking about an option or the kind of dual track MBP).   

Something must be on the way because Apple closed above 600 dollars a share today for the first time in several weeks.

 

While it's axiomatic that stock prices go up when more people buy the stock, and not because of any ascribed cause, it's also true that Reuters, Bloomberg, and WSJ all had stories on the 7-inch-diagonal iPad mini.  The forthcoming Google mini-pad was extremely well reviewed but will have limited distribution compared to what we now expect of Apple & if the mini-pad sector takes off according to expectations, there's some feeling Apple will manufacture a shutout.

 

 

 

The iMac falls into the non-mobile market, which as only DogCowabunga knows ;-) is now a relatively minuscule fraction of Apple's device families, but since Apple is still Apple, they will take the requisite amount of care in the user experience. Who wants to buy a new computer, only to update the operation system to something different, even if the  difference is only slight? (and ML is not slight).  If I remember correctly, something similar happened with Lion and an Air update not so very long ago.  

 

 

 

Inventory management and back-to-school are 'not nothing', but I'd look on the other side of the equation to see when things are going to happen: when the chips are available, are there enough panels, can the graphic engine drive the humongous higher density display, and how quickly can a million of them be made available to a hungry world, which includes me.  Although it's quite true that in the past supply dry-up reports have trickled in (though 'trickled in' is probably not the best term to describe 'drying up') for months before an update, I'm still looking for an announcement in the week or two before the July 24 earnings.   Disclaimer:  I know nothing. 

 

Not necessarily.

 

The GUI objects that need the higher resolution can be made to use it. If you look at the video editing tools Apple have released for the Retina Macs, the video areas use the full resolution (and thus gain the real-estate the doubled resolution provides), while the GUI widgets (buttons, text etc) are effectively double the size so that they are still easy to click on.

 

What Apple seem to be doing here is leaving the use of the newly found screen real-estate up to the developers. Which is just a smart thing to do imho.

 

So, what I guess I'm trying to say is that you probably shouldn't count Apples GUI designers and their hardware engineers out so quickly on this one. They have a habit of doing a decent job ;-)

I wonder if they will bring out a imac/tv hybrid? 42" imac would be great to combine as a tv.

It wouldn't work unless it was very high resolution and even then, it wouldn't be a retina display at normal computer distances. It also looks ridiculous:



I think it will be 27" for the foreseeable future. It would be good if they could make the 27" more affordable too. There's only $200 between the $1499 21.5" and $1699 27" (same spec otherwise) and there is $300 between the entry 21.5" and $1499 model. It should follow that they could put the entry spec into a $1399 27".

Cutting the optical drive would bring the 27" model down by another $100 so the entry 27" can be $1299. Given that the entry 21.5" now is $1199, they might as well just drop the 21.5" model altogether and that way they can save money by shipping the same display in every model.

They would need a different user interface to have a HTPC make sense. There are people that use HTPCs, more power to them, but I don't think it's an idea ready to hit prime time. iMacs are overkill for a video playback device anyway.

I want my new iMac!!!!!!

That just means that people are betting on something being on the way. Speculation happens all the time, and it has been known to crash post announcements. It's pretty typical for the analysts to hype it up, sell, it goes back down, and they can buy back in. This is pretty common. As long as they aren't lying on fundamentals, they're basically safe.

It's a dubious claim to say that the imac must contain a higher resolution display. It could happen. It's just not a guarantee of any kind. Stock always gets hyped before earnings announcements, and the idevices are likely to carry this one again. It's been a little weak on Mac releases.

Marvin cutting the optical drive isn't a guarantee of anything. Stop drinking their kool-aid. They could hit that price point either way if they wish to do so.

They could give them away for free 'if they wish to do so' too but the kool-aid I drink is one that makes it clear there is a relationship between what parts cost to buy and fit and what Apple determines they need to be marked up by, which results in the final price.

You may very well buy an internal optical drive for $20 but for Apple to put one into the iMac, they have to design the chassis to accommodate the drive and have a part of the production line for the drives to be fitted, wired up and tested.

Without the drive, they don't have to machine the space, order the parts, nor have someone fit and test those parts, nor deal with warranty repairs on failed parts, nor support issues relating to the parts. The savings are far more than the cost of the bare drive itself.

They most certainly couldn't drop the price by $100 without taking a large hit to their profit margins, which is what you suggest. Their average margins are 25% so a $1199 iMac makes $299 profit (minus delivery, which is free). If they just drop $100, that comes straight out of the profits and they still have to maintain the production line to accommodate the design.

27" IPS panels aren't cheap y'know. Dell sells their 27" display for $780. To add a quad-core CPU + GPU + 4GB RAM + 500GB HDD + iSight + wireless KB + Mouse and end up with $1299, you can't just lop off $100 without a strategy for making it work.

One part of the strategy is where people are encouraged to buy software digitally and Apple makes their 30% on Mac App Store sales.

I never suggested 27" panels were cheap. The cheap ones are 1080 panels, although the Dell and others started higher, meaning those panels most likely dropped off in price at some point given the number of manufacturers and oems that brought their pricing down by several hundred. I am aware of the extra logistics in implementing such a device, although I'm not sure where you got that specific margin. The problem is that you're looking with what they did on the mini combined with their marketing there when the mini has still started lower in the past. As for Apple or any other company, costs are a factor, but they don't determine the end price. If Apple wants to, they can raise the price by $500. what would matter there is if the price increase ends with a net gain after other things such as offsets in volume are factored in. It's not necessarily a goal to sell as chap as possible. I'm still not convinced that the optical drive alone would drop it by that much unless they're holding back slightly on other components to support this. They do a lot of weird things. Anyway you're way too focused on an isolated incident. You should also bear in mind that 21.5" panels are not even remotely expensive relative to something like 27". You can find $100 displays at that size and resolution. Retail price tends to go up exponentially as you go up in size unless you look at A-/B grade panel displays.

Two places: when the Mini lost the optical drive, the component prices remained the same and the price dropped by $100. If you configure a Mac Pro with a second optical drive, Apple charges you $100. I don't know why you aren't convinced that removing the optical drive won't drop the price by that much when they charge that much to put one in and I don't really know what point you are making. I'm saying that they could drop the 21.5" model with a redesign and go 27" across the lineup and dropping the optical will help reach the entry price point.

I think they should too, spending $1200 to get a machine with a 21.5" display isn't very good value but $1300 to get a 27" display is.

I definitely agree with you there. Display pricing has fallen considerably since their last major design refresh. Their future designs could be influenced greatly by whether they plan on implementing considerably higher resolution panels in the imacs within the near future, although I don't know if they could really cram the innards of the top configurations behind a smaller panel that puts out more heat.

I'm hoping for an increase in number of iMac models and an increase in the display size range. Maybe something like 20", 24" and 32" (ultra widescreen). Hoping.

 

I guess that could happen, but I don't see desktop users going much larger with current usage patterns. Think of it this way. With CRTs, if you needed screen real estate, you went for a 21". They were available for many years. They are very similar in height to the current 24" displays. While the diametric measurements many have increased, most of it has been driven by wider displays. 30" displays have become way less common, replaced by widening the 25.5" form factor to 16:9 and marketing it as 27". I don't see them going much beyond this in mainstream use. It just becomes larger for the sake of larger. Personally I hate that the display size is coupled to the rest of the hardware. Apple pushed this, but I don't personally find it to be ideal. It's beneficial to Apple when it comes to structuring their price points, but I dislike it, especially as I'm not a fan of Apple's display designs (which are not just dependent on panel number/brand). There are many points of contention that come up there. I need a certain amount of drawing freedom. Wacom's QC and service suck so I won't touch the cintiq line. I'm using the second largest (labeled large) intuos as the oversized one has issues of its own. Getting close to 1:1 mapping means using a portion of the display, so the really huge displays become kind of pointless. Given  that it's the closest thing to a mid range desktop, the imac sees some use by people who would like to game on it. The gpu relative to display size is a bit of a squeeze there if it's anything demanding. The same thing could be said if they're dealing with animation programs.

 

The point I wished to make was that coupling the rest of the machine with an ever increasing display size isn't necessarily ideal given the limitations of consumer grade technology. It has worked up to this point as they're able to get a high markup by packaging upgrades together when you go up a tier.

While there has been a lot of discussions on the display I'm actually happy with the display as it is. 

 

What I want to see is Apple move forward with the updated processors and SS drives at a lower price.  Improvements behind the display.

 

But then I have 68 year old eyes.  

I would like to see the iMac match the thunderbolt display.  I am looking at getting an iMac with 2 Thunderbolt displays attached to it for my business and having the iMac with that chin, and the TB Displays w/o it just doesn't look right.  

 

I am ready to buy, just waiting on Apple, as I am sure a lot of people are. 

True, but if they drop the optical drive in favor of an SSD, the price decrease won't likely happen. (At least that's what I'm hoping they're planning)

From the sounds of it, any update this year will just be an incremental update, mostly a switch to Ivy Bridge, mainly offering some speed improvements, cooler operation, USB 3, maybe a more powerful graphics chip along with that. If they do finally remove the optical drive and going SSD-only, that is more in line with a major update that Apple people say will be offered next year, the hint is that it's a major rethink of the product.
Edited by JeffDM - 7/10/12 at 12:48pm

This whole discussion has made me wonder, why is there a 27-inch display to begin with?   If the display were more resolute, it might not be necessary to have such a big one.  That is, suppose you could do the same side-by-side comparison of your reference document, but without such a large screen.  It would be better, right?  I LOVED the clip that someone put up, of the 42-inch screen in the cubicle.  That was a good one!

 

In fact, a not-a-bad-way to proceed would be to release the smaller iMac with a retina, and then catch up with the bigger retina panel later.  However, even though I went out on a limb and said that Apple will be announcing new iMacs this week or next, with immediate availability, I do *not think* there will be a retina option in this iMac's "processor bump".  In other words, retina's appearance will be coordinated across the 27 inch products, and maybe they will even be the same height off the desktop!

I can see that argument, some needs for a 27" diminish with retina.

Retina, as it is, generally doesn't necessarily show more information, its main intent is better detail. It doesn't show more words unless you deviate from the Retina-optimized resolution.

A 27" monitor can't show more than two letter sized portrait pages at the same time at 1:1 scale.

That said, if Apple offered a 21" Retina and a 27" non-retina, I might go for the smaller, retina model.

There might be something to having more surface area for cooling though, the performance offered on the 21" model is a couple steps down from what they offer on the 27".

I think it was to help get the price down on the Cinema screen. The 30" Cinema display used to cost $3299 and dropped to $1799 in 2010. When it was discontinued, the 27" Cinema display came in at $999. They use the same panel in the Cinema display as the iMac:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/133052/teardown-of-apples-thunderbolt-display-finds-same-lg-panel-used-in-2009-imac

This means they can order the panels in large quantities and get discounts from the volume. Despite Apple having much higher build quality than Dell, they managed to undercut their price when it launched. The Dell is cheaper now by $200 with the same panel but the Cinema screen has a webcam, mic and speakers inside as well as FW800 and Gig-E and a metal chassis.

If they make the entire lineup 27", they only have to order a single batch of panels for everything. I personally think 24" at 2560 x 1440 across the lineup would be suitable and would drop the price considerably but the price points they hit with the 27" aren't too bad as it is and they will continue to drop so they'd be as well sticking to it. 27" also offers a significant value proposition vs PCs. If a PC bundle is selling at $1249 with a 24":

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883117094

Apple selling the 27" at $1299 is better value.

Marvin the "same panel" thing is overstated. There are variations within a basic panel design and the implementation beyond that point. It would require closer comparison to see which one is superior. Dell is actually quite favored as a budget solution. If you're going to pay more and do not require the docking capacity of the TB display, NEC's may be a better option. Their warranties are longer (4 years standard) and the PA displays have 48 hour replacements. Apple may be better in terms of what they cover under warranty. I'm not sure, but most display manufacturers can be annoying to deal with on warranty issues unless the thing is actually bricked. The cinema has also been made into more of a docking station. Regarding 24" displays, I wish those picked up more resolution a long time ago. It's a very nice size.