or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Tim Cook admits he wishes Apple had held launch of new iMac until 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tim Cook admits he wishes Apple had held launch of new iMac until 2013 - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I didn't even know about sound, and I don't think he did either. However - are you sure it is not your unit rather than general problem?

I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did. But you can tell the sound isn't defective as much as an abysmal design decision. It wouldn't be the first time Apple has chosen looks as their core design decision. It's why I can't use their mice. The iMac is great in many other ways, like the screen quality and on such a large display (27") 16:9 suits far better. The smaller chin and the lack of front facing aluminium in the frame are nice too.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #42 of 66

I didn't mind waiting for my new 27" iMac. It's really sweet with the big bright non-glare display, 32 GB RAM, faster processors, etc. I've been buying Macs since 1985, and every new one I get is so much better than the one it replaces. And this one's the most beautiful of them all.

 

I'm very grateful to Tim and his crew for their resolve to keep creating the best products on the planet. My life is so much better as a result.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

But he doesn't wish the speakers weren't shit. Which they are. This is my forth iMac and it has by far the worst audio. I use it for music all the time while I work on it, I detest add-on speakers. It annoys me that innovation of the iMac has come to not rate audio quality as near as important as just plain thinness. Design is about trade offs and I can tell you they've made the wrong ones with this iMac. While the bass is good and the treble piercing, the mid range is completely gone and the whole sound sounds like it's been funnelled through a street construction cone, thanks to its thin chin. It was so bad when I first heard it I was actually in shock.

 

Internal speakers always suck. I've used many iMac models are they're always crap. Just buy a good pair of external speakers and be done with it. Stop bitching about something thats easily fixed because you're too stubborn to get external speakers that will blow any iMac's speakers out of the water. Or, get a good pair of headphones like I have. Use airplay and stream your music through AppleTV to a nice surround sound system. 

 

Waits to be called an idiot....

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did.

I like music. Big time. I have previous iMac models. Their speakers are pretty shitty too. Given where its already is on the audio quality scale, I am not sure that the even worse speaker quality on the new iMac matters all that much.
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

The current iMac is really no different to a Mac mini with a screen. However the mini is easier to work on and cheaper.
If you are going to be forced to have an external ODD then you aren't losing out by having a Mac mini there as well.

 

Except for the lack of GPU I'd agree...

post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did. But you can tell the sound isn't defective as much as an abysmal design decision. 

 

If you were big into music you wouldn't be big into any internal speakers.  Thus far everyone but you seems to understand this.

post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

If you were big into music you wouldn't be big into any internal speakers.  Thus far everyone but you seems to understand this.

 

My thoughts exactly. If you were into music then you'd get a real set of speakers and possibly even a sub woofer and not rely on crappy small internal speakers that will always sound like crap. These can be had relatively cheap. You don't have to spend $500 to get good sound quality. There are a lot of 2.1 systems that sound pretty damn good for the price you pay. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Except for the lack of GPU I'd agree...

 

The other difference would be the Mac mini has a dual-core core i5, while the iMac has a quad-core core-5. I would assume this is done more to keep the cost of the Mac mini down than anything else. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #49 of 66

I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two.  I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM.  That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.

 

I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk.  The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....

 

I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.

 

Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...

Photoshop User 2
Reply
Photoshop User 2
Reply
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPhotos View Post

I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two.  I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM.  That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.

 

I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk.  The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....

 

I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.

 

Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...

 

Why do you need access to the RAM? These days I really don't see it very necessary. If you order the iMac with the proper amount of RAM in the first place then its a non-issue. I support over 100 Macs in a school district and have never needed to touch the RAM slots. 4GB of RAM was more than enough for anything they've used them for, including photo editing, iMovie, graphics design, etc. 

 

If something were to go wrong well then thats why you have AppleCare. I've had to use them in the past for different misc issues and you ship it to them overnight, its there being fixed 1 day, 2 at the most, and shipped back to you overnight. I've never had a Mac out more than 3-4 days. Not a big deal. I would also hope you purchased AppleCare with your Macs. Really, really silly if you don't.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

Why do you need access to the RAM? These days I really don't see it very necessary. If you order the iMac with the proper amount of RAM in the first place then its a non-issue. I support over 100 Macs in a school district and have never needed to touch the RAM slots. 4GB of RAM was more than enough for anything they've used them for, including photo editing, iMovie, graphics design, etc. 

 

If something were to go wrong well then thats why you have AppleCare. I've had to use them in the past for different misc issues and you ship it to them overnight, its there being fixed 1 day, 2 at the most, and shipped back to you overnight. I've never had a Mac out more than 3-4 days. Not a big deal. I would also hope you purchased AppleCare with your Macs. Really, really silly if you don't.

Apple charges too much for RAM - and I (unlike  you) have upgraded the RAM in virtually every Mac I have ever owned since my IIfx in 1991 ...

 

Programs and needs change - will 8 GB ordered today be enough in 3 years?   Since I run my own studio - rather than some tax payers -  I'll still be using the computers after the Apple Care has expired.  Having to pay a "Genius" to pull off the front of the computer to update RAM is just plain dumb -- IMHO.  Just to make it thin ????  Who makes these decisions and what is their motivation?  

Photoshop User 2
Reply
Photoshop User 2
Reply
post #52 of 66

I have a 2010 iMac that's been in the "shop" 3x in the past three years because soot was sucked into the space between the LED and the glass enclosure. I've Googkled it and thousands of iMac owners suffered the same fate. So Apple had to refresh the iMac to correct this design defect regardless of the upgrade cycle. I've contested for month Apple release too many products at the same time last Fall, many of which they couldn't deliver because of unforseen manufacturing snafus.

post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

The other difference would be the Mac mini has a dual-core core i5, while the iMac has a quad-core core-5. I would assume this is done more to keep the cost of the Mac mini down than anything else. 

 

The $799 Mini is a quad core i7.  The $1,299 21.5" iMac has a quad core i5.  

post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The $799 Mini is a quad core i7.  The $1,299 21.5" iMac has a quad core i5.  


You failed to point out why you'd compare the the slower performing, cheaper Mac mini to the costlier, higher performing iMac that comes with a lot more HW.

"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 #55 of 66
Are we talking about announcing the new iMac or launching it? Maybe saying "the new iMac, coming in 2013" would have been better but to still announce it in October.
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Are we talking about announcing the new iMac or launching it? Maybe saying "the new iMac, coming in 2013" would have been better but to still announce it in October.

Announcing it so far in advance would have dire consequences.

"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 #57 of 66
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Announcing it so far in advance would have dire consequences.

 

It's not like they sold the old model during the lull anyway. Nor could I imagine them selling any old model of anything after the new one has been announced. Have they ever? They should have just taken preorders… 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's not like they sold the old model during the lull anyway. Nor could I imagine them selling any old model of anything after the new one has been announced. Have they ever? They should have just taken preorders… 

1) Older iPhones, iPods, and iPads have been sold after the new ones came out. They've sold most of their older products between announcements and the new ones being dropped but the time is usually very short.

2) Consider how poor the iMac sales were in the Holiday quarter when they were meeting some of the demand. Now negate every single one of those iMac sales from the list. That would just have made it worse. They really should have done a spec bump to the old style last Summer and then released the new one in the first few months of 2013 to maximize revenue and profit.

"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 #59 of 66
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
1) Older iPhones, iPods, and iPads have been sold after the new ones came out.

 

Yeah, because they keep making those. Have they ever kept selling a computer after the announcement of the new model thereof?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, because they keep making those. Have they ever kept selling a computer after the announcement of the new model thereof?

I answered that: "They've sold most of their older products between announcements and the new ones being dropped but the time is usually very short."

"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 #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

Internal speakers always suck. I've used many iMac models are they're always crap. Just buy a good pair of external speakers and be done with it. Stop bitching about something thats easily fixed because you're too stubborn to get external speakers that will blow any iMac's speakers out of the water. Or, get a good pair of headphones like I have. Use airplay and stream your music through AppleTV to a nice surround sound system. 

 

Waits to be called an idiot....

 

You idiot! How dare you come up with such excellent suggestions!!

post #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPhotos View Post

I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two.  I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM.  That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.

 

I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk.  The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....

 

I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.

 

Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...

 

 

Why not just order them with the amount of RAM you want?

 

Those iMacs come standard with 8GB RAM now… I've been using a 27" iMac since 2010 loaded with "only" 8GB, running Final Cut, Logic, Adobe CS, etc… I've never come close to running out of RAM or memory. 

 

What would you be doing in the classroom that would require more? They only go up to 16GB anyway, so you might as well BTO 'em at that amount if you need it and just enjoy……….. it's only $200 more...


Edited by tribalogical - 4/24/13 at 4:11pm
post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

You idiot! How dare you come up with such excellent suggestions!!

That made me think of Ren and Stimpy.


"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 #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

 

Why not just order them with the amount of RAM you want?

 

Those iMacs come standard with 8GB RAM now… I've been using a 27" iMac since 2010 loaded with "only" 8GB, running Final Cut, Logic, Adobe CS, etc… I've never come close to running out of RAM or memory. 

 

What would you be doing in the classroom that would require more? They only go up to 16GB anyway, so you might as well BTO 'em at that amount if you need it and just enjoy……….. it's only $200 more...

My newest Nikon D800 produces 50MB RAW images - and doing HDR with 9 of the images will give you time to get a sandwich while you watch progress bars go across the screen.  And, 3 years from now ???  Who knows .... more RAM always speeds thing up - and it's cheap to upgrade if you don't have to buy it from Apple or get a "Genius" to pull all the parts out.  I just think that this new design is stupid for a desktop computer .... And, so, I didn't buy any.  Maybe that's why Q1 sucked ?

Photoshop User 2
Reply
Photoshop User 2
Reply
post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You failed to point out why you'd compare the the slower performing, cheaper Mac mini to the costlier, higher performing iMac that comes with a lot more HW.

 

Er what?  The 2.6Ghz i7 mini is faster than the iMac 2.9 Ghz i5 in anything but GPU heavy work.  For example in the CS6 Liquify or Iris Blur benchmark the mini is horrid but for Remove Noise the mini is much faster than the iMac and slightly faster than the rMBP 2.7 quad i7.

 

http://barefeats.com/imac12p.html.

 

What "a lot more HW"?  The primary difference is the monitor, the GPU and the keyboard and mouse.  Of those the only thing you can't buy is the GPU.

 

Keyboard + Mouse = $140 (actually I like the wired keyboard with the numpad better)

Monitor = $224 - Dell 23" IPS LED monitor 1920x1080.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Dell-UltraSharp-U2312HM-IPS-Monitor/dp/B005LN1JEC

 

As to why, I was correcting someone regarding the $799 mini has a quad i7 and not a dual i5.  But you don't really read before you post do you?

post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPhotos View Post

My newest Nikon D800 produces 50MB RAW images - and doing HDR with 9 of the images will give you time to get a sandwich while you watch progress bars go across the screen.  And, 3 years from now ???  Who knows .... more RAM always speeds thing up - and it's cheap to upgrade if you don't have to buy it from Apple or get a "Genius" to pull all the parts out.  I just think that this new design is stupid for a desktop computer .... And, so, I didn't buy any.  Maybe that's why Q1 sucked ?

 

16GB Kit from crucial $125

16GB upgrade Apple $200

 

Mildly annoying but not a deal breaker. The problem is more the two slots and not really the apple tax or the lack of a door.  I suppose when 16GB sticks come out it might be nice to upgrade to that someday.

 

/shrug 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Tim Cook admits he wishes Apple had held launch of new iMac until 2013