or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple trimming iMac inventory ahead of Haswell models while resellers cut prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple trimming iMac inventory ahead of Haswell models while resellers cut prices

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Apple's major channel partners have begun offering material discounts on custom-configured iMacs just as the company appears to have slowed the flow of units coming into the channel in preparation for new Haswell-based models expected by fall.

iMac


For instance, B&H on Wednesday evening slashed the price of 15 different custom iMac configurations by as much as $150, several of which had not previously been discounted from Apple's suggested retail price. Many of those same configurations were previously available from other resellers, but have not been restocked alongside other Macs for several weeks, according to historical data from the Apple Price Guide.

The discounts join sales efforts initiated earlier this month by Best Buy, Amazon (Update: out of stock, prices raised via DataVision), and MacMall -- all of which are similarly offering the four standard iMac retail configurations at discounts between $100 and $150. Given the new inventory management measures Apple adopted after January's MacBook Pro surplus scare, the discounts are likely the start of a multi-week effort to run its iMac channel fairly bare.

According to the most trusted reports, Haswell-powered iMacs could be available for launch by late August, but those same reports suggest the possibility that Apple will elect to wait several weeks longer in order to avoid a repeat of last year's misfire, when the company pushed the existing iMac lineup to market too soon, leaving customers waiting for months when demand could not be met.

The blunder drew a rare public admission of hindsight from Chief Executive Tim Cook, who would later state during a conference call that he wished he had waited until 2013 to launch the new iMacs, which were largely unavailable through the entire 2012 holiday shopping season.


The iMac was plagued with production issues when the desktop went on sale in December. It was reported that those issues came from a unique screen lamination process Apple employed in the now current design, allowing the desktop to sport a much thinner profile than its predecessor.

"In retrospect, yes, I sort of wish we had done it after the turn of the year," Cook said. "Customers wouldn't have had to have waited as long as they did."
post #2 of 27

Headline is about iMac while picture is a Macbook Pro. Too Snarky? Haswell would be a big boost to Macbook Pro's battery life. Won't be a big help for the iMac.

post #3 of 27
There are other benefits to haswell
Doodle Dice iPhone puzzle game: A fun, free physics-laden collection of dice games.  Greatest app made yet?  Perhaps young man... Perhaps.
Reply
Doodle Dice iPhone puzzle game: A fun, free physics-laden collection of dice games.  Greatest app made yet?  Perhaps young man... Perhaps.
Reply
post #4 of 27

Hm, not so much interested in Haswell here, but would love Thunderbolt 2 support (and a Retina or 4K top model, hehe).

post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Hm, not so much interested in Haswell here, but would love Thunderbolt 2 support (and a Retina or 4K top model, hehe).
Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?

 

Depends on the GPU(s) Apple uses

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?

 

Yes, sure. And my "hehe" above was intended to admit some wishful thinking here...

 

Nevertheless, we know that Apple did hire several GPU experts and we know that the new Mac Pro will support (multiple) 4K displays. So, very likely, Apple will release an updated or additional Thunderbolt Display that indeed is 4K to go with it. For almost a decade Apple's top "Pro" laptops and iMacs were always able to drive all of Apple's displays (and even the 11" MBA can drive the current Thunderbolt Display). So, I would assume that this is planned. It might not be now, but maybe in a year though.

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?

iMacs don't use mobile processors.

post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by arch View Post

iMacs don't use mobile processors.

 

They do use mobile GPUs though; and that is indeed a relevant point here.

post #10 of 27
Just waiting for the update to trade-in.
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Hm, not so much interested in Haswell here, but would love Thunderbolt 2 support (and a Retina or 4K top model, hehe).

 

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference. 

 

They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying. 

post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference. 

 

They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying. 

 

Less than a foot away from an iMac screen!!!? Time for you to get some glasses so you can sit a little further back. I just measured 19" from my eyes to the screen  on my 15" rMBP and I can tell you without question that I can tell the difference between this screen and a non-retina screen. With a larger screen in front of me, it would be even more obvious. Especially at less than 12" from the screen!

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #13 of 27
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference.

 

Wrong. 

 

Oh, and if you're sitting a foot away, you're doing a fair bit of damage to your eyes.

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 #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference. 

 

They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying. 

You have your logic backwards. Closer you are to the screen, the better you can tell the quality.  

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference. 

 

They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying. 

 

Well, my normal viewing distance from the 27" screen is more like 2 feet. We do have a Sony PVM-X300 4K in the office for reviewing 4k footage, and I can guarantee you that there is a huge difference between viewing full size footage on it vs. watching the same footage on a 27" Thunderbolt display... The difference is at least as dramatic as it is between an iPad 2 and an iPad 3 or 4.

post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference. 

 

They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying. 

 

As someone with 20/10 eyesight[1], I'll call bull shit on this.  According to the guys who talk about these sorts of things, I can see dots up to about 450dpi.

 

So, depending on the dpi on the new 4K display (I doubt if it'd be 450dpi), I *CAN* see a difference.

 

[1]  Not everyone wears glasses or have shitty eyesight, thanks.

post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein View Post

Headline is about iMac while picture is a Macbook Pro. Too Snarky?

Didn't you know the iMac is just a laptop on a stand? 1wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 
a Retina or 4K top model

They may have an option to switch a lot of their products over to IGZO:



This includes the iOS devices. The power consumption is lower, the bezels can be smaller. This means they can fit slightly larger displays into the same physical size and improve battery life on Macbook Pros and iOS products. The response times are much faster than any display they've used. Dell and Sharp will have 32" models. If Apple went with 32", they could perhaps switch the entry iMac to 24".

The increased resolution also gives the option to scale the display better to lower resolutions.
post #18 of 27
Waiting on a resolution upgrade before I upgrade one of my iMacs. Does everything I need it to right now, so I can be patient. Here's hoping for 2014...

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #19 of 27

I have retina 15" Macbook Pro. If next iMac has Retina screen, then I'm buying it, otherwise I'll wait. It's as simple as that.

post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

If Apple went with 32", they could perhaps switch the entry iMac to 24".

I would hope they continue to offer the 21.5" or similar sized configuration. Not everyone needs massive desktop screens. I'm hoping that IF Apple update their display they would offer a 21.5" display as well as the 27" model currently offered.
post #21 of 27
We are way pas the point where customers "need" to upgrade. Most people upgrade because their previous Macs are 4 years old, still serving them fine, but probably just want to catch up on things like iLife. Others are the compulsive adopters, who can never have enough I suppose.

Soon Apple needs to take the price points on iMac lower. This is even more imperative because large "developer" markets like India other wise will just stick to the Mac Mini. Frankly, Mac Mini is more than adequate, but Apple is still missing out.
post #22 of 27
If you buy Mini with Apple display you can spend more money than on iMac with much more power and much less cables.
Mini is good only as a cheap entrance to Apples world if you dont care about power and style.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalseHUD View Post

I would hope they continue to offer the 21.5" or similar sized configuration. Not everyone needs massive desktop screens. I'm hoping that IF Apple update their display they would offer a 21.5" display as well as the 27" model currently offered.

Unfortunately, there's no one 'right' size. For me, I'd prefer 24". 21" is too small and 27" is too big. Obviously, other people see it differently. Even if Apple were to offer 5 sizes of iMacs, not everyone would be happy.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 27

Apple needs to offer a scalable screen. Pull on the side and it grows, press your thumb to the top and it gets smaller.

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
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydobby View Post

Mini is good only as a cheap entrance to Apples world if you dont care about power and style.

That sounds very Napoleonian...

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
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydobby View Post

Mini is good only as a cheap entrance to Apples world if you dont care about power and style.

What if you have a 27" IPS from Dell when you had a windows PC 3 yrs ago, but now you want to switch to Mac?  A Mini would be perfect in that situation and an iMac wouldn't be.  Not to mention, with the iMac being an AIO- if something goes wrong on it, you throw away everything (if it cant be repaired).  That said- I have an iMac and prefer it for my normal computer.  But I have a mini as a server at my home for a side business so I can access a database from any location- no need for a screen when I can just screen share- an iMac would be ridiculous in my situation.  I understand the appeal for a mini- and its vast- not just a cheap alternative with less power and style.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Unfortunately, there's no one 'right' size. For me, I'd prefer 24". 21" is too small and 27" is too big. Obviously, other people see it differently. Even if Apple were to offer 5 sizes of iMacs, not everyone would be happy.

Why not just get some blue painters tape and mask it off to 24".  The only thing you'd be missing out on is full screen apps, finder, and notifications (and youd have to make the dock on the left side).  Oh ya- and it'd have blue tape on it.

 

I'm just here to provide solutions.  1smoking.gif

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face.  You wouldn't be able to see the difference.

 

Wrong. 

 

Oh, and if you're sitting a foot away, you're doing a fair bit of damage to your eyes.

 

I am very nearsighted, and sit 12 inches or less from my computer. Damage was done at birth. Not everyone has 20/10 vision either. My vision is such that changing resolution makes things out of focus, even more than normal. Again, a visual defect from birth. My 20 inch iMac would look nice if I could drop the resolution down to 1024 x 640 from 1680 x 1050. I have tried changing the resolution on a new 27 inch iMac and it is a no go. Would really enjoy having a 21.5 inch iMac with what the rest of you call 'razor sharp', at a lower resolution. Perfect eyesight isn't forever.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple trimming iMac inventory ahead of Haswell models while resellers cut prices