or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Estimated delivery times for Apple's 21.5" iMac begin slipping
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Estimated delivery times for Apple's 21.5" iMac begin slipping

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 
New orders of Apple's 21.5-inch desktop iMac are now advertised to ship in 2 to 3 weeks to U.K. customers, suggesting production problems remain for the all-in-one desktop.

iMacs


Previously, new orders were scheduled to ship in 7 to 10 business days before the estimates slipped on Monday. However, Apple's U.S. store continues to advertise shipping times of 7 to 10 days.

The larger 27-inch iMac is still advertised to ship in 3 to 4 weeks in both Apple's U.S. and U.K. stores.

The new all-in-one desktop is said to have been met with production issues when it launched late last year. Those apparent problems have continued into 2013, as availability remains limited.

AppleInsider was also first to report earlier this month that Apple's reseller channel was completely out of stock of the 21.5-inch model. If the longer shipping times from the U.K. are any indication, the company may not have had much success in improving production to keep up with demand.

Analyst Ming-chi Kuo of KGI Securities revealed in August, months before the new iMacs were unveiled, that production issues were likely. It was said that the screen lamination process in building the new desktops is difficult, particularly with the larger 27-inch model.

Apple CEO Tim Cook also publicly stated in October that his company would face a significant shortage of iMacs in the December quarter. However, no indication was given that the company expected any issues to spill over into calendar 2013.

Cook will likely shed more light on the iMac supply situation this Wednesday during his company's quarterly earnings conference call. Analysts expect Apple shipped 5 million Macs in the quarter, a year over year decrease mostly attributed to limited supply of the new iMacs.
post #2 of 103
That's a good sign, but not in an analytical way ¡
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #3 of 103
Production problems or sales demand?
post #4 of 103

I was lucky enough to walk into the Apple store in december and get the 27" high end model.  Got a $2600 model with i7, fusion drive and the 680mx. They had just received them and the Apple employe told me they usually sell out within hours on the same day.

 

Its may not be retina but its still spectacular, especially in games.

post #5 of 103
I think they'll get this resolved before the end of the quarter. I bought my iMac and it came earlier than original expected. It was scheduled to be delivered between the 26th and 31st of the December, but I received it on the 18th. Even UPS delivered it a day ahead of their original projections, which was on the 19th. Go figure.

I've talked to local Apple Store reps that I gotten to know pretty well and they told me that they sell out every day from their daily shipments, the demand is fairly high for these products. So whatever production problems they have will get resolved.

Now, some of them are being assembled in the US and some in China. Mine was assembled in China.
post #6 of 103
It suggests no such thing. If all stores slipped it might suggest production issues. But one store alone slipping just means that demand has exceeded current supply and in keeping with Apples style they are extending the times to under promise and possibly over deliver by getting it to folks ahead of expectation, rather than disappointing by having to delay. In some areas it's also a legal issue that those times are a promise to the customer and they can be fined if they don't deliver on time. So they pad extra time into things to cover that as well.

These kinds of comments right before an earnings call are more likely bunk and a ploy to drive the price down a bit further to grab a few shares before the numbers come out and the price possibly goes up

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #7 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I was lucky enough to walk into the Apple store in december and get the 27" high end model.  Got a $2600 model with i7, fusion drive and the 680mx. They had just received them and the Apple employe told me they usually sell out within hours on the same day.

Its may not be retina but its still spectacular, especially in games.

Was that the 3TB FD?

I ordered mine 10 days ago. Still says it's Processing with an estimated ship date of February 8 to 15th. I got the standard high-end config with the 3TB FD as my only BTO option. My local Apple Store only had the 1TB FD option.

PS: Whenever I see/hear the word spectacular I also think of this scene from Seinfeld: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL2PicT9Kng

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #8 of 103
Well it certainly can't be a demand issue. I mean c|net is telling us the new Mac is only compelling for "Mac loyalists", and we know there's not many of those around anymore. 1wink.gif

post #9 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Well it certainly can't be a demand issue. I mean c|net is telling us the new Mac is only compelling for "Mac loyalists", and we know there's not many of those around anymore. 1wink.gif

 

There are better tech sites. I avoid referencing cnet whenever possible. I also hate the reference to mac loyalists. At their current size, it's unlikely that the fanboys make up a large percentage of their sales. They are about as mass market as you can get.

post #10 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

Production problems or sales demand?

Production problems.
post #11 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Production problems.

To be clear, you don't think there is any iMac demand, just production problems?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #12 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It suggests no such thing. If all stores slipped it might suggest production issues. But one store alone slipping just means that demand has exceeded current supply and in keeping with Apples style they are extending the times to under promise and possibly over deliver by getting it to folks ahead of expectation, rather than disappointing by having to delay. In some areas it's also a legal issue that those times are a promise to the customer and they can be fined if they don't deliver on time. So they pad extra time into things to cover that as well.

These kinds of comments right before an earnings call are more likely bunk and a ploy to drive the price down a bit further to grab a few shares before the numbers come out and the price possibly goes up

Or it means supply is extremely limited, and Apple is diverting shipments away from the uk in order to keep the wait time in the US down before the Earnings Call.
post #13 of 103

Hey its cold outside.  The streets haven't been sanded so the truck s wont slip on the ice.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #14 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

To be clear, you don't think there is any iMac demand, just production problems?

Considering all the reports that have been published since launch commenting on production problems with this line, yeah. Cook should have ironed out the bugs before launch like he normally does, but they rushed out an already delayed product in hopes of racking up some sales over the holidays. This isn't rocket science, Sol.
post #15 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

There are better tech sites. I avoid referencing cnet whenever possible. I also hate the reference to mac loyalists. At their current size, it's unlikely that the fanboys make up a large percentage of their sales. They are about as mass market as you can get.
Yeah me too. But I thought that screen shot was good for a laugh, 3 hits on Apple all on the front page. 1biggrin.gif
post #16 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

This isn't rocket science, Sol.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 103

I don't understand the new iMac's design. Who was asking for a thinner iMac? Why don't they just keep it the same size as the last and up the performance so it becomes more of a mid-range machine instead of being fairly low end machine?

post #18 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

I don't understand the new iMac's design. Who was asking for a thinner iMac? Why don't they just keep it the same size as the last and up the performance so it becomes more of a mid-range machine instead of being fairly low end machine?

1) People asking for and people desiring are not the same thing. I am certainly excited about the new design and it seems to me that many others are, too.

2) I've heard people complain that the iMac and MacBook lines are all thin enough and yet Apple seems to be making them thinner and they seem to get more popular even in the face of the iPad singlehandedly eating away at "PC" market.

3) I didn't ask for it but I also didn't choose to go with the 2011 model after seeing it. In fact, I decided to spend more money on a new one that I have to wait a month for instead of a cheaper, used/refurbished model.

4) They upped the performance. I don't recall a time when Apple has made something thinner YoY and also reduced the CPU speed. It wasn't that long ago in a much thicker iMac that they used notebook-grade CPUs.

5) For the life of me I can't figure out what makes the new iMac low-end and the previous one mid-range.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #19 of 103

No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.

post #20 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

I don't understand the new iMac's design. Who was asking for a thinner iMac? Why don't they just keep it the same size as the last and up the performance so it becomes more of a mid-range machine instead of being fairly low end machine?

 

 

Unless the new iMac production process is a dry run for an Apple TV....   Hmmm....

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #21 of 103

Dude... I know you're trying to make a point, but publishing that screen shot is really not so cool. Just kinda obnoxious.

post #22 of 103
Who says they have production problems? No really, somebody prove it. It's all anonymous rumor.

Since we go strictly by rumor here I hereby state unequivocally that the problem is a demand problem. Demand is far outstripping supply and THAT's why the shipping dates are going up. Now please prove me wrong.
post #23 of 103

@razorpit That is a great point about the iMac eventually turning into Apple TV where being thin would be more important. That could be really good in the future but for current versions of the product strictly as a computer it doesn't make any sense. It is interesting to entertain the idea of a 50"-60" iMac hanging from your wall. It seems like the natural evolution for the product.

 

@isaidso I am glad Cnet posted that review and are not just praising every move Apple makes. Apple can do better then this and they need to have pressure to move in that direction. Good for them.

post #24 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.

1) "Already very thin" is subjective. When each iMac design first appeared after the swivel-head models they were all very thin for their time.

2) Yes, the 21.5" iMac has a 2.5" drive instead of a 3.5" drive. It also doesn't have a way to easily change the RAM. Even when Apple made the battery internal on the MB and MBPs you could still get access to the RAM by removing 10-12 screws.

3) Your initial comment mentioning upping the performance hence I focused on aspects that are increased with YoY updates, like the CPU. If it was a 3.5" HDD before you weren't going to expect a 4.0" HDD this year. Where is the upping?

4) In Apple's defense, the performance of the Fusion Drive is upping the storage capacity performance over even a 10k HDD, which are impractical for an AIO, and it's doing it at a fraction of the cost of what a 1TB SSD would cost.

5) In your defense, the lack of a 3.5" drive and lack of external access for RAM does make it a no go for me, which is why I am impatiently waiting for the 27" iMac to arrive, but I'm not the only customer and I'm certainly not a typical customer. I'm sure Apple knew when designing the new iMacs what they needed to include. Well, they could have made a gross error in judgment but if they don't know who is buying the 21.5" iMacs and what upgrades if any are being done after market then no one knows. I'd wager on Apple knowing these things.

6) You've clarified your argument to mean a drop in performance from 7200 RPM to 5400 RPM. That's it! That's one thing drop in one area on one model that is easily corrected with the new Fusion Drive (which I recommend to everyone as I have been using it for months now in my 2010 13" MBP).

7) If you really wanted a 21.5" iMac with a 7200 RPM drive with no SSD then you have to go with an older model or use an eternal drive. Every single revision Apple (and every other vendor) will alienate some customer in an attempt to sell to other customers. If the aforementioned setup is what you were dreaming of you are SOL, at least with this model. I personally think the 27" model was the focus and that the next revision of the 21.5" iMac could get RAM access back.

8) Here are some other things to consider as Apple's reasoning for the new design:
  • Will attract a wider range of buyers from being iconic (actually we discussed this but wanted to restate it. Consider the first flatscreen iMac with the swivel head. It was a doomed body which doesn't work for any computer component and was a bitch to fix or upgrade)
  • Less material used means cheaper to build (which may not be the case since there are production issues at play)
  • Lighter weight (means less cost in shipping)
  • Reduced volume (means less cost for shipping and they can keep more in the stock room)
  • Relative low volume of unit sales makes it a good production model to test and perfect new techniques that will find their way into other products (which could be why there are production problems. The original MBA was secretly the first unibody aluminum chassis and now we find it in the MB (as polycarb) MBP, iMac, Mac mini, apple remote, iPads, iPhone and iPods. I'm not sure they do any pressed metal or molds in any of their aluminum products)

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #25 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

@razorpit That is a great point about the iMac eventually turning into Apple TV where being thin would be more important.

Huh? How is important for a TV to be really thin but not a big ass computer display?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #26 of 103
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post
I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow…

 

I challenge this so hard…


Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Huh? How is important for a TV to be really thin but not a big ass computer display?

 

We're still using LCDs. BACDs don't come into the picture for a while. 1wink.gif

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #27 of 103

I have seen those ads on TV for the razor thin TVs and think that makes sense since you don't want something terribly thick protruding from the wall. If it is sitting on your desk you won't even notice it's tickness until you have to turn the computer on it's side to access the ports. Also if the iMac (or whatever they would call their TV) was 60" it would have enough specs and might be able to get around it performance short comings of the iMac with the smaller screen. Just look at how much better the performance gets from going from 21" to 27".
 

post #28 of 103
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post
If it is sitting on your desk you won't even notice it's thickness…


Really? You think I want nine inches of my desk taken up by a giant rectangular prism? It absolutely matters.


Also if the iMac (or whatever they would call their TV)…

 

Obviously not 'iMac'…


…was 60" it would have enough specs…

 

See, I was just saying the other day that my computer doesn't wear enough glasses for my liking.


…and might be able to get around it performance short comings of the iMac with the smaller screen.

 

What "shortcomings"?!

 

60" can't inherently give you "enough specs"; size has nothing to do with that! You think because the LCD panel is larger they'll shove more processors and more storage behind it?! No.


Just look at how much better the performance gets from going from 21" to 27".

 

That's far less for reasons of space than you'd imagine.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #29 of 103

""Already very thin" is subjective. When each iMac design first appeared after the swivel-head models they were all very thin for their time."

There was a point when iMacs where thick like you mentioned but Apple needs to be the judge of when something is thin enough. Remember we are talking about desktops here not laptops, thin is not the number one thing people are looking for. If it were then you might as well get a laptop and gain the portability with your thiness.

 

"Every single revision Apple (and every other vendor) will alienate some customer in an attempt to sell to other customers."

Not if they have a wide enough hardware selection. Look at Apple's hardware line up from eight years ago:

 

Low end:

mini, iMac

 

Mid range:

PowerMac G4

 

Mid to high:

PowerMac G5

 

Back then they had a product for most people. Since this time they killed off the all their mid range machines and jacked up the price of their high end systems nearly $1,000. Now are product choices are low end and crazy high end. Very disappointing.

post #30 of 103
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post
There was a point when iMacs where thick like you mentioned but Apple needs to be the judge of when something is thin enough.

 

Why do you get to be the judge of when engineering stops?


If it were then you might as well get a laptop and gain the portability with your thiness.

 

Know of any 21" or 27" laptops that use desktop processors?


Not if they have a wide enough hardware selection

 

Now you finally understand. Apple couldn't care less about that.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #31 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Really? You think I want nine inches of my desk taken up by a giant rectangular prism? It absolutely matters.

The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about? It all has to do with finding balance. Yes, the first version of this style of iMac, the iMac G5, was a bit porky and benefited from being slimmed down. But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.

post #32 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about? It all has to do with finding balance. Yes, the first version of this style of iMac, the iMac G5, was a bit porky and benefited from being slimmed down. But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.

30 Feb, in a non-leap year.

 

Cheers

post #33 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp 
Since we go strictly by rumor here I hereby state unequivocally that the problem is a demand problem. Demand is far outstripping supply and THAT's why the shipping dates are going up. Now please prove me wrong.

It was delayed before they even had it for sale and there was no preorder. Demand outstripping supply is a likely outcome if there's a supply problem.

They are reported to be having issues with friction-stir welding and display yields. The friction-stir welding might help them cut down on materials:

http://aaronmiller.in/blog/2012/why-friction-stir-welding

It could also partly explain the new shape. They were milling the enclosure before, which cuts out a fair amount of material. Although aluminum is cheap, they are making 1.5 million desktops per quarter x 5kg so 7500 metric tons and aluminum is $2000/ton so $15m in material. That's only what they are left with though. They said they cut keyboards out of the iMacs so that uses some of it but the rest (2/3+?) has to be recycled.

If they can cut just two thin sheets and weld them together, that whole recycling part could be reduced considerably and they can probably make the sheets thinner. They obviously haven't made them cheaper yet but perhaps it will pay off in the long run. It's perhaps too much of a stretch but the technique was possibly used to build Steve's boat and if they'd seen the process in action, decided to work it into their manufacturing process down the line.

The technique could be applied to the Mini too. It would just be a thin strip for the edge bent twice and a thin rounded square, then just weld it together. Rather than carving it out of a block, they could build loads out of a single block. That's bound to save some costs shipping the materials back for recycling.
post #34 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Who says they have production problems? No really, somebody prove it. It's all anonymous rumor.

Since we go strictly by rumor here I hereby state unequivocally that the problem is a demand problem. Demand is far outstripping supply and THAT's why the shipping dates are going up. Now please prove me wrong.

Demand also "outstrips" supply in the face of production problems, which makes your conclusion a non-sequitor, and thus, wrong. To ask for people to prove you wrong is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
post #35 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.

You're not making much sense. The Fusion Drive is faster than a 7200 RPM HD and doesn't add any thickness to the enclosure. So if you care about performance in the 21", that's the option for you. The new iMacs are slimmer and faster for those who care about HD performance, and also slimmer for those who don't care so much about performance.
post #36 of 103
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post
The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about?

 

How silly it would be to make the iMac thicker. What are YOU talking about?

 

But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.
 

Given that it doesn't have slow performance, and in fact gets faster with each thinner revision, I think they can keep doing what they're doing without wasting our desk space on thick computers.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #37 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

You're not making much sense. The Fusion Drive is faster than a 7200 RPM HD and doesn't add any thickness to the enclosure. So if you care about performance in the 21", that's the option for you. The new iMacs are slimmer and faster for those who care about HD performance, and also slimmer for those who don't care so much about performance.

Here is BareFeats testing on the new iMac against machines with and without Fusion Drive. Note this is the 27" iMac so the drive is 3.5" and therefore 7200 RPM.


Edited by SolipsismX - 1/21/13 at 7:43pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #38 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.

 



The 21" model with the fusion drive will smoke any 7800 or other drive. You don't have to settle for the slower drive.

post #39 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Here is BareFeats testing on the new iMac against machines with and without Fusion Drive. Note this is the 27" iMac so the drive is 3.5" and therefore 7200 RPM.


Useless benchmark. I can't wait to get my 27" iMac. I'm going to do the first (and ONLY) review on a 3TB fusion drive talking about drive performance AFTER it's been filled up with well over 128GB of apps and the drive is actually forced to pull up rarely used apps that aren't already sitting on the SSD!!!

 

Every fusion drive benchmark out there simply puts a few apps on their iMac and runs a test. This is useless because the SSD can hold 128GB. That means if you have less than 128GB of stuff on your hard drive (which happens to be the case with all these benchmarks), it's all gonna be on the SSD. Of course your benchmarks are gonna run fast! It's not pulling anything from the HDD.

 

They don't actually fill up their computers with 1TB of apps and THEN run the test like I'm going to do. And my test is actually going to run intensive apps that aren't going to be touched in a long time. This will be a true test of the fusion drive performance.

post #40 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Well it certainly can't be a demand issue. I mean c|net is telling us the new Mac is only compelling for "Mac loyalists", and we know there's not many of those around anymore. 1wink.gif

 

Amazing screen cap. Shows the clear editorial independance of C|net. I mean, who else has dared shake the Apple theocracy and tell the truth on the iPhone 5, the iPad, the iMac and warned that MBA isn't up the Lenovo's ultrabook?

 

 

Ahemf.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Estimated delivery times for Apple's 21.5" iMac begin slipping