or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple expected to offer more affordable 'budget' iMac next year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple expected to offer more affordable 'budget' iMac next year - Page 4

post #121 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

@Rob

In stock because they can. 5c is 2nd best selling phone at ATT / Sprint.. beating out the Galaxy S4 of all things. 3rd at Verizon and T-Mobile.. so ANY statements that it's not selling well are simply false.. They ramped up for stock for coming holiday, then ramp down unless demand calls for more.. standard manufacturing.. companies do this all the time..

All I'm hearing is same gloom and doom, in spite of awesome sales numbers from cell companies, that don't seem to be dropping.. The price drops from Walmart, BBY, and others are standard op.. They did this almost right away with the Galaxy S4.. you didn't hear it wasn't selling well. We are in the holiday season for buying.. TONS of specials going on and ramping up..

pfff.. They will practically be giving away nearly all phones soon in ramp up for black friday. Maybe all phones are doomed then! !!!! ;p
duh, the iPhone 5C is the second best out there in general, compare it to most androids, it's about even.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post

I just want a 30-inch iMac with a retina display and fusion drive for $2200 USD.
Nope, times 2 to your price

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Or a fall day in 2016. Not a 30”, granted, but…
Or wait I guess(May be a little more time) though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why don’t idiots understand what the Mac Mini is? Is it the shape that throws them off? 
Possibly, it is a budget Mac, possibly the only one to come in a less than $1000 price tag in the future from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

WTF people. 

There are complaints about Apple gear being too expensive, and there's insensible screaming about an "Apple Tax" . . . or something. Then there's news of a possible reduction in price (as if in response to this inanity). THEN there are complaints about Apple watering down their lineup with "cheap" computers. 

O.o

Apple knows their shit. Even in a market downturn they manage to ride it out. And who else can successfully (to Apple's degree) cannibalize their own products? 


Additionally, for 
the Chicken Littles, this is a RUMOUR. 

Grain of salt, folks. 
People want everything 1/10 its price but still the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Thing is, the Mac Mini is specifically for switchers. BYODKM. They toss their trash Windows tower and plug a Mac Mini in its place. They even get to keep their cigarette-stained keyboards and their mice that are so greasy you have to wear gloves to use them. 

 
A slightly cheaper iMac won’t do squat to get the morons who pay $200 for a computer every two years to buy a Mac. Apple apparently needs to better explain that the Mac Mini, at $600, will last five times longer than the Windows machine it replaced, without any maintenance during its lifetime.


Two decades happened to it. Welcome to the future, also known as modern day.
Yep, seen the keyboards and mouses with a plastic covering so there "new" feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The low-end iMac is already pretty budget. Integrated graphics, HD instead of SSD, 21" screen only. And it's very reasonably priced. I don't really see how they can go much cheaper without going to a plastic case. But heck, that's exactly what they just did with the iPhone.
yeah, of course there is always screen size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Apple does have school pricing.

If anything, Maybe Apple will bring back the 17" as the "budget" model for $900/1000?
yeah, most likely in $1000

Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Imo the 5c days will come in the last 6 months of the cycle, when there are less tech fans and more price sensitive people buying iphones.
duh, the 5C will likely have steady sale through its 12 months, the 5S will be on a steady drop throughout that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

You're supposed to reuse the ones from your old PC.
duh

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrProphecy View Post

Cheap iMacs! Can we have them in five different flavours like in the old days? So we can reminisce on how apple have become the world class ass kicking bringers of simplicity we know them as today. They love saving you money and always have done.
sounds like the 5C, I noticed its in 5 Colors now, makes me think the 6C will be same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

I don't think it will be a budget iMac.

Instead Apple will go for a mac mini redesign.

Think same form factor as the mac pro but in Silver.

This way they could go from real basic to higher end. E.g. The new cylindrical mac mini could have the same specs as the high end 27" iMac but with the same price as the entry level 21" iMac. Now, that would be tempting …
of course the mini, the IMac in a mini not really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by konqerror View Post

That's absolutely untrue, at least here in the United States. Schools have hundreds and hundreds of computers and districts have tens of schools, so they act like any mid-size enterprise that buys thousands of computers. They have to balance the cost of staff time against the cost of cheap hardware. All of the schools I've seen use enterprise-grade hardware like Dell Optiplexes and have a standard configuration over entire districts. They need the long-term support, something you can't get on low end home computers.
I have only seen 1 school without 20 year old windows computers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

It was a disappointing redesign. Maybe the pointless thinning out and removal of the DVD drive has put people off, I know it made me reconsider and I kept hold of my 24" hoping for an eventual update that would make it worth getting.
It is a worry for windows owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


Apple would charge you $6,400 for that.
Yeah 3 times is closer
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashrebel View Post

space gray will be really nice on iMacs.
Anyways I hope, Apple will produce more high end iMac than low end, the same with iPhone ...
nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

I predict that the budget iMac will be ARM based.

The CPU and GPU are among the most expensive parts so if they can slash the the CPU/GPU costs retail prices will drop.
They will also need either a full blown 64 bit OS X port to the ARM architecture or perhaps a new iOS  Desktop UI.

OS X applications will then be recompiled and ported to the  iOS Desktop.

Time will tell.
inmobile IPad rumors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Unless said iMac is going to be $699, they’re not getting rid of the Mini.
then there not getting rid of mini, the IMac will not be 1/2 its price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Why would iOS work any better on a desktop than Windows 8 metro is working right now? A full-screen calculator app makes sense on a phone or tablet where there is limited screen space, but not on a 21+ inch display. 
yes, but a revised IOS for 12-20 inch tablets might look better on a 20+ inch screen

Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

As much as I would like to just have an iPad Mini, a 5s and iCloud for all my computing needs, I still think of my iMac as the digital hub of my tech, photos, movies, sw, etc. And probably will for a few more years.

It's hard to spend $1,200-$2,000 on a new iMac.

Getting an 11" MBA to replace my aging original intel, white 20" iMac doesn't seem to fit the bill.

Probably will end getting a new iMac and an MBA.
a IOS device with Mac quality would be nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Why Apple 'slimmed down' a big honking desktop machine that NO ONE looks at from the side is beyond me. I can understand removing the CD/DVD drive from the portables, but it's a frickin' imac and people still need to read CD/DVDs, especially on these desktop models.
Apple's tendency towards crippling the specs of their machines over form factor isn't always a desirable thing and although I have a 2 year old imac, I can say right now that I won't be upgrading to another iMac. If I wanted laptop components and laptop specs, I'd buy a laptop, stop skimping on the power, some of us need it!
its the space left over with the removed features, I hate this because other company's do that, but now apple

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Yep. We keep hearing how tablets are killing the PC but yet Apple is somehow doomed because they're phasing out DVD drives from their products. Which tablet again ships with a DVD drive? And no I'm not talking about convertible Ultrabooks that have a touch screen.
tablets are meant for mobile needs, did you carry dvd's around with you, no, but use them at home yes, that's why I think desktops should have them, laptops and tablets don't

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

They aren't skimping on power at all! I have a 27" 4-core i7 iMac running at 2.8Ghz, 8GB of RAM, a Terabyte drive internal, a small 4TB raid array external.… it runs all my "power user software" just fine! (Creative Suite, Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Ableton Live, plugins galore.) A few 3D games too, quite handily (World of Warcraft, Homeworld 2). 

Oh, but... did I mention I bought mine in early 2010?

The CPU/GPU and other internals have only gotten faster and much more powerful and efficient since then. For the same or even lower price than I paid for mine! 

You say they are skimping on performance because they dropped the internal optical drive? Buy an external drive! Use it when you need it. I've used mine all of four times this year. Didn't really NEED to either. My next iMac can be without the drive, and that'll be fine. I'll just buy one if/when the need arises again, which is likely to be never.

Change is hard, I know. I've been moving with this modernization tide for over a decade now, and it can be rough sometimes. It's well worth it though. I have freed myself from the bondage of technology. It's smoothly integrated into my daily life now, and I have tons of free time as a result. Thanks to Apple for that!  Managing optical discs is just one less thing I worry about. Seriously!
Awesome hardware, out of the Mac book pro, you can get those kinds of things now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh! Here, I’ll help you catch up to it.

See the angle of the curve of the iMac’s casing? Notice it’s about, oh… 5-10*? Sounds a little like a keyboard. Dunnit? It does. And what do we put on a keyboard? Our hands, yes? Strange, then, that the iMac’s shape would lend itself to a keyboard aesthetic. Unless… we’re meant to touch our iMacs.

But that’s silly. Bringing the iMac down to a keyboard’s angle to touch the screen? An iPad, sure, because it has great glass covering the screen to touch, but not the…

Well. Look at this. The iMac has had glass covering its screen since 2007.

And I said this EXACT thing six years ago. Apple is taking desktop computers multitouch. They’ve been working at it for years now, both in hardware and software. And it’s coming to fruition soon.

The iMac has gotten thinner. And thinner. And glass over the screen. And thinner. And now it’s thin enough to SET STRAIGHT ON A DESK and we’ll touch the darn thing. But lo, the software. It’s still cursor-based, right? Wrong! Wait, no, right… you’re right. 

BUT. Look at it. Every new OS X release brings us a step closer to multitouch. Every new release makes icons larger, finger-size, makes the UI more touch-friendly. And the day will come that we’ll be begging Apple to let us touch OS X. And that day will be followed by OS XI, a UI and UX designed to be touched. No more mouse, but desktop software-level depth and interaction.

*THE DEGREE SYMBOL, WHICH WAS TYPEABLE NOT TWO WEEKS AGO, HAS NOW BEEN OVERRIDDEN AGAIN BY HUDDLER’S STUPID CUSTOM COMMANDS. COME ON.

[who?][citation needed]

So buy an iMac. You’ll get desktop components and desktop specs.

Education is “low end”? Aww. 1frown.gif  
Note most keyboards are thicker than that, a IMac that is a touchscreen keyboard sounds a neat market
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Right! Thanks.


Here’s what I think about discs at this point (let’s call it my opinion 2010-present): If you really need to do it, plug a SuperDrive into an AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule and burn/rip from/to any Mac in your house. Simple!
you can do that? Yes 1 SuperDrive can do what 10 used to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Unless the price is $599 or less it won't really seem like a budget machine to most people in PC land. Like I said in a different thread, the Mac Mini base model should be priced around $349 as is. Adding a keyboard, mouse, and monitor would put it around $599 in a package deal. Units with similar features from HP cost that much. They have an all in one for $529.99.

Making the cases out of stamped steel or plastic instead of blocks of aluminum would be more efficient. Just because they do that for a low end model doesn't mean they must do it for their expensive models. It won't dilute the brand. It will expand it.
not happening
post #122 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The problem with the iMac has nothing to do with price, they could sell the thing for a dollar and I wouldn't buy the machine. Apple apparently configured the machine for some idealized virtual customer that they feel is an idiot with limited needs and a compromised understanding of technology. Apple can try to spur sales with a lower cost model but if it is no more desirable than the current machines I don't think they will bag that many more gullible people than they do now.

The next iMac needs the input of a real user, a real engineer and a real repair technician. As it is now, iMac lets each of these people down.
OK I'll bite....how exactly is it letting these people down? How often does a "repair technician" need to service an iMac, especially one without an optical drive?
post #123 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Why don’t idiots understand what the Mac Mini is? Is it the shape that throws them off? 

 

I only know one person who owns a mac mini and it's basically a content server for their home entertainment system, something that could be replaced by a USB hard drive connected to a router.

 

Much of the joy of using a mac is interacting with Apple-quality display and peripherals, something you don't get with BYOKDM.

post #124 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

OK I'll bite....how exactly is it letting these people down? How often does a "repair technician" need to service an iMac, especially one without an optical drive?

Take out the HDD and there won't by much spinning going on in there. Then if it breaks you just need a new one, that's all.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #125 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Thing is, the Mac Mini is specifically for switchers. BYODKM. They toss their trash Windows tower and plug a Mac Mini in its place. They even get to keep their cigarette-stained keyboards and their mice that are so greasy you have to wear gloves to use them. 
 

A slightly cheaper iMac won’t do squat to get the morons who pay $200 for a computer every two years to buy a Mac. Apple apparently needs to better explain that the Mac Mini, at $600, will last five times longer than the Windows machine it replaced, without any maintenance during its lifetime.

 

 

Two decades happened to it. Welcome to the future, also known as modern day.

 



The other use case where the Mac Mini has come in to its own is as a co-located dedicated server. I have one co-located at MacMiniVault and it's brilliant. No need for all the accessories, it just sits there in a special Mac Mini rack and I can access it from anywhere. For those that want a resonably priced, dedicated server running Mac OS X, it's a great choice IMHO.
post #126 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

I only know one person who owns a mac mini and it's basically a content server for their home entertainment system, something that could be replaced by a USB hard drive connected to a router.

Much of the joy of using a mac is interacting with Apple-quality display and peripherals, something you don't get with BYOKDM.

I use one, connected to the TV in the living. Couldn't ever get away with a stick; I need VLC, codecs and all that to play a variety of video's. Happy camper with the little guy underneath the big screen, together with the AppleTV.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #127 of 198
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

..a content server for their home entertainment system, something that could be replaced by a USB hard drive connected to a router.

 

Not in an Apple environment, it can’t. :mad::grumble:

 

Freaking… what in the world is the problem with Apple that they won’t do network attached iTunes Libraries?! I mean, yeah, they want to sell more Macs, but you’d NEED a Mac to format said iTunes Library and add content to it in the first place. Just let me plug a hard drive into my AirPort Extreme and push content to an Apple TV…

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 #128 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Freaking… what in the world is the problem with Apple that they won’t do network attached iTunes Libraries?! I mean, yeah, they want to sell more Macs, but you’d NEED a Mac to format said iTunes Library and add content to it in the first place. Just let me plug a hard drive into my AirPort Extreme and push content to an Apple TV…

I know, we all want this. But alas, Apple isn't going to cater to these specific wishes, though I still could see them expanding their AExpress, AExreme with a 3rd model: iTunes Airport. Call it Personal Cloud or something. I'd buy it instantly, providing they'd sell large HDD's in it.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #129 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What is idiotic is buying a desktop machine that is glued together and isn't serviceable at all without un gluing it. Especially when the serviceable items have no external access at all.

How do you "unglue" something. Regardless, most consumers won't ever need to crack open an iMac. If it's so damn important to you, build one yourself.
post #130 of 198

You are absolutely correct! The iMac is a perfect consumer machine no doubt, but schools and businesses in many cases would like to be able to swap a hard drive or have some access to the internals. Some schools prefer laptops and iMacs for labs, but I sit on one technology board for a school system that resents not being able to service their own machines after warranty. Granted, they have their own techs, which is not universally the case. 

 

I have had 7 hard drives in 4 iMacs die from heat over the last 4 years at my own business, and lifting the glass off to access and replace is a daunting task at best. Certainly a consumer may not be utilizing their computers 9 hours day working the graphics and processor as hard, so it is not a problem for them. 

 

And if you have to use a particular computer system at work or school you may decide to buy the same at home. Their is no doubt the iMac is a great computer, I think they should just expand the line of computers a bit. OSX is the star, put it on some machines to address some more markets. I would rather invest in a great display and buy a souped up mini that I could replace when I need to, but as powerful as the mini is it could use better graphics or more built to order options. 

post #131 of 198

Edit: nevermind

post #132 of 198

This idea really get more sectors into mac os : Schools, Colleges , business centers , china & Indian market , i hope this idea double the sales figures :)

post #133 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

How do you "unglue" something. Regardless, most consumers won't ever need to crack open an iMac. If it's so damn important to you, build one yourself.

Probably means to use a glue remover.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #134 of 198

The biggest BOM cost still belongs to Intel. So unless they switched to using AMD I dont see how Apple could make a $999 iMac without significantly hurting their margins. And that will compromise their CPU performance. ( GPU on AMD are pretty good ).

 

I haven't been following AMD closely, may be AMD are willing to bent over for a Custom AMD x86 SoC for Apple?

 

Or with the Rapidly shrinking PC / x86 market Intel are willing to make Haswell Cheap for Apple.  After all we are talking about at least ~$180 cut in BOM.

post #135 of 198

Could it be a plastic chassis Imac with the same budget price as the alu one? You know budget means even mou money for apple, mmmm!

post #136 of 198

Apple would not sink that low to provide a plastic chassis I doubt that.

post #137 of 198

The cost different between Aluminum and Plastic casing are minimal in the grand scheme of things. The Problem is Intel doesn't offer any low cost CPU that comes with a good enough GPU for Apple to use.

 

On a $1299 iMac, at BOM cost of $900, Over 30% of that belongs to Intel. 

post #138 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Apple would not sink that low to provide a plastic chassis I doubt that.

Am I detecting some sarcasm? 1biggrin.gif
post #139 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What is idiotic is buying a desktop machine that is glued together and isn't serviceable at all without un gluing it. Especially when the serviceable items have no external access at all.

If it breaks, buy another one for $1. Or would you rather buy a $200 hard drive and replace it yourself? Like I said- $1 is an idiotic comment. Most of us are logical people- we don't need asinine exaggerations to prove a point.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #140 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post
 

The cost different between Aluminum and Plastic casing are minimal in the grand scheme of things. The Problem is Intel doesn't offer any low cost CPU that comes with a good enough GPU for Apple to use.

 

On a $1299 iMac, at BOM cost of $900, Over 30% of that belongs to Intel. 

hence the importance of the ASeries chip in the grand [4 year] scheme of things.  It's the only leverage against the intel tax.

 

Lower prices on an iMac really are only derived at the moment on the LED screen, Disk,  and the memory.   Moving to the high end haswell may help in making the cooling less complicated and/or the entire unit lighter (40-$50 of the cost of the unit is shipping[every piece multiple times], and less weight/volume the lower the net ship price…  An old Sun Micro Rep said, at the desktop level and volume discounts, you literally are paying by the pound…*).

 

(*hence building in the USA for some units is cost effective IFF the heavy stuff [Power supply, case, glass] are made in the US as well, given the time humans [wages*benefits] spend per unit assembling has shrunk so much.)

post #141 of 198
Do you mean the way Apple was suppose to launch a low-cost iPhone? A bunch of analysts and websites reporting what those analysts said predicted that. It got the stock market all excited because, for some odd reason, idiots there cared more about market share than actual profits. Then when the reality that Apple doesn't compete in discount, low profit margin markets became a reality and there was no low-cost iPhone, the sheep panicked and sold Apple shares, causing the stock to tumble, costing investors billions of dollars and harming Apple's reputation.

When you, Mr. Hughes, report one analyst's opinion as if it were fact (look at the headline--no mention that it's merely the opinion of one analyst who has NO inside information from Apple, it's just a wild guess), you are encouraging sheep to misunderstand what Apple does and set up the stock for another tumble. You, personally, are potentially costing stockholders billions of dollars. Do you really think that's right?

I'm not saying you shouldn't report what an analyst says, but report it in context. Make clear, in the headline that an "Analyst Guesses that There will be a "budget" iMac Next Year." In your first paragraph make clear that this runs contrary to the history of what Apple does. This is called "objective reporting."

And remember, "analyst" is a term that simply means "carnival fortune teller." The only difference is that the analyst isn't as accurate. Nor as entertaining.
post #142 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Apple would not sink that low to provide a plastic chassis I doubt that.

LOL What was the original iMac made up of?
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #143 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

What was the original iMac made up of?

A similar material to the original iPhone, but in a different Form Factor.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #144 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

If it breaks, buy another one for $1. Or would you rather buy a $200 hard drive and replace it yourself? Like I said- $1 is an idiotic comment. Most of us are logical people- we don't need asinine exaggerations to prove a point.

It isn't asinine at all to reject a concept. By buying an iMac you promote the concept of disposable, non maintainable, electronics. Nothing logical about that at all. Even Apples Mini is far more accessible that the current crop of iMac as is most of the laptop lineup. That must of took considerable effort on Apples part because the desktop provides far more design freedom that a laptop.

Sometime the wise man avoid the temptation of the cheap to stick to things he values. In this regard I wouldn't buy the current crop of iMacs even if they only charged a dollar.
post #145 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


It isn't asinine at all to reject a concept. By buying an iMac you promote the concept of disposable, non maintainable, electronics. Nothing logical about that at all.

 

It actually is completely logical. If nobody upgrades their computer anyway, building in upgradeability or repairability leads to extra costs and resources. The computer has to be bigger, heavier, harder to ship, use more metal pieces, separate connectors that fail, etc.

 

To give you an example, like most cars, the transaxle on a Prius is uneconomical to repair when it wears out. Now trucks use much larger rear-wheel drive transmissions and separate differentials. Those can be easily replaced. However, they are physically larger and heavier, thus burn more fuel. Since most people trash their cars after 150k miles, the non-repairable, lighter design has an overall smaller impact.

post #146 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

hence the importance of the ASeries chip in the grand [4 year] scheme of things.  It's the only leverage against the intel tax.
A series is still a long ways from pressuring Intel when it comes to suitable chips for the desktop. This is where I'm really hoping that AMD will help out and actually push out a more competitive chip. AMD use to be leverage against Intel, now it is a tougher sell. Haswell, via the Iris GPU, has almost eclipsed AMD so now putting an AMD chip in a Mini is even a hard sell.
Quote:
Lower prices on an iMac really are only derived at the moment on the LED screen, Disk,  and the memory.  
I'd have to add, the mechanical design. New approaches there might help costs significantly.
Quote:
Moving to the high end haswell may help in making the cooling less complicated and/or the entire unit lighter (40-$50 of the cost of the unit is shipping[every piece multiple times], and less weight/volume the lower the net ship price…  An old Sun Micro Rep said, at the desktop level and volume discounts, you literally are paying by the pound…*).
Actually when it comes down to it that is the way many industries work! After a certain point it is a matter of weight. The semiconductor business usually charges by area but in the end that is almost the same thing as charging by weight.
Quote:

(*hence building in the USA for some units is cost effective IFF the heavy stuff [Power supply, case, glass] are made in the US as well, given the time humans [wages*benefits] spend per unit assembling has shrunk so much.)
In the context of the Mac Pro, it really doesn't look like a machine designed for manufacturability. I'm not sure why that wasn't stressed in the design. In any event the move off shore was very much about exploiting many free hands in a lax worker safety environment. The funny thing was or is that was decades ago now, but people still focus on that aspect of off shoring, now a days many of those off shore factories are highly automated, so even automation doesn't protect American manufacturing. As you note shipping becomes a big factor.
post #147 of 198

I have to replace multiple systems and I'd be fine with going the mini route and probably updating more often if Apple would put out a smaller thunderbolt display. Maybe 21.5 of the iMac? I don't need or want the 27 for most of my applications.

post #148 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108 View Post

Do you mean the way Apple was suppose to launch a low-cost iPhone? A bunch of analysts and websites reporting what those analysts said predicted that. It got the stock market all excited because, for some odd reason, idiots there cared more about market share than actual profits. Then when the reality that Apple doesn't compete in discount, low profit margin markets became a reality and there was no low-cost iPhone, the sheep panicked and sold Apple shares, causing the stock to tumble, costing investors billions of dollars and harming Apple's reputation.
Stock manipulation and the fact that the markets are full of idiots has nothing to do with Apple. This doesn't harm Apple as much as it harms the reputation of the Wall Street manipulators.

Let's face it manipulators are exactly what these people are. They try to influence Apple by getting public support behind them. Thankfully the public is into these sorts of low life's.
Quote:
When you, Mr. Hughes, report one analyst's opinion as if it were fact (look at the headline--no mention that it's merely the opinion of one analyst who has NO inside information from Apple, it's just a wild guess), you are encouraging sheep to misunderstand what Apple does and set up the stock for another tumble. You, personally, are potentially costing stockholders billions of dollars. Do you really think that's right?
Ethics in reporting went out of style eight years ago when the media unethically promoted Obama into the White House. Honesty, respectability and general acceptance of the media and especially the news media has taken a huge dive of late. In general people no longer trust what passes for reporting anymore.

Sad really because we have things happening in Washington right now that are worst than Watergate but nobody cares anymore or maybe more so journalist look the other way as it is their guy in office.
Quote:
I'm not saying you shouldn't report what an analyst says, but report it in context.
Appleinsider would do the world a bit of good and simply not report at all what these guys are saying. That would be the responsible thing to do.
Quote:
Make clear, in the headline that an "Analyst Guesses that There will be a "budget" iMac Next Year." In your first paragraph make clear that this runs contrary to the history of what Apple does. This is called "objective reporting."
"the history of what Apple does", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Apple didn't do a low cost iPhone because it doesn't need to yet. That doesn't apply to the desktop line up which has suffered a massive sales decline this year. That is partly due to terrible design in the iMac and partly due to declining market conditions, but largely due to very expensive machines relative to the rest of the industry. Unlike the iPhone the Mac Lineup needs machines that represent a better value than the current crop of machines. So any history you may think Apple has doesn't apply here.

In a nut shell it doesn't take a fortune teller to realize that Apple has huge problems with the Mac lineup. All three of Apples desktop machines are a joke right now. Apple realizes this and that is why we are getting a new Mac Pro soon. Apples pricing strategy will determine if that Mac Pro remains a joke. The iMac got revved and remains a joke. The only other machine left is the Mini which honest I believe has to be replaced with something different to tweak people's interests yet again.

It is interesting to contrast the desktop line up with Apples AIRs which are anything but a joke. AIRs are apparently still doing Very well sales wise. Laptop wise though the MBP sales have tanked, this again due to offering a terrible value. In other words the MBP pice doesn't match up with the shipping feature set.

As to this article and title, budget seems to be an inflammatory word on these forums. That is sad because I don't see Apple lowering its margins on such a machine. Rather I see them throwing new tech at the machine to effectively lower the price. That can be via new processor technology, memory technology, mechanical technology and maybe feature sets. Contrary to popular opinion they can do a lot for the case to adjust costs. On the electronics side high integration Intel solutions next year could lower costs and shrink the motherboard as would more soldered on components. The day of a credit card sized iMac logic board may be a ways off but that doesn't me and considerable shrinkage can't happen. Apple may get a completely functional motherboard out the door for $3-400.
Quote:

And remember, "analyst" is a term that simply means "carnival fortune teller." The only difference is that the analyst isn't as accurate. Nor as entertaining.

Which brings up the question of why AI even bothers posting this crap. Let's face it even DED's reporting is more digestible than this crap and I can't read all of DEDs articles. In the end there is a big difference between understanding where technology is going and the fortune telling of these analyst.

The most interesting thing here isn't Apple but rather Intel. They are hurting from the general downturn in i86 sales. So they have two options to maintain profitability. One is to raise prices to support smaller volumes on expensive production lines. The other is to pack more functionality into a chip yet bettering prices to spur sales against low end ARM based systems. The second option is very tough but I think Intel has no choice but to off very competitive SoC next year. A7 might not do the trick this year, but Apple won't be far away from an uprated and improved 64 bit ARM solution. The thought of loosing Apple even partly as a customer must scare Intel stiff. Thus I can see Intel and Apple collaborating closely on a chip designed to offer up a low cost iMac. By the way that low cost iMac might only be a $800 machine which would still make it expensive in many eyes.
post #149 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by konqerror View Post

It actually is completely logical. If nobody upgrades their computer anyway, building in upgradeability or repairability leads to extra costs and resources. The computer has to be bigger, heavier, harder to ship, use more metal pieces, separate connectors that fail, etc.
Err actually I think you underestimate just how many people do repair their computers, either DIY or in a shop. It is a large enough market that I know of guys locally making a good living at it.

You might have a point if the iMac shipped as a single board machine, but it doesn't. Rather it ships with a power supply and a hard drive a separate items, even the RAM is a separate component. Non of these are easy to get to in the small machine. The hard drive and power supply are known failure points in all computers so yeah sealing them up inside a machine like the iMac is asinine.
Quote:
To give you an example, like most cars, the transaxle on a Prius is uneconomical to repair when it wears out.
Maybe, maybe not, but that transaxle can be replaced and frankly it isn't much worst to do than most other cars of a similar design.
Quote:
Now trucks use much larger rear-wheel drive transmissions and separate differentials. Those can be easily replaced. However, they are physically larger and heavier, thus burn more fuel. Since most people trash their cars after 150k miles, the non-repairable, lighter design has an overall smaller impact.

That is a bit of a stretch. First trucks are often ran reliable for much longer than the common car. Second cars with poor durability don't stand up to public opinion, Chevys Saturn was a good example here. Saturn being a nice idea, but the details are in the implementation and in that regard the machine was junk.

In any event we are talking about Macs here. They common refrain I here is that Macs last longer. That statement is debatable in and of itself but it can be agreed that on average people keep and use Macs for a longer period of time than the average PC, they do that by repairing them as needed when and if needed. At some point that means a third party facility, which frankly charge a bit more for an iMac repair due to the issues surrounding working on iMacs.

I just not buy the idea that a non repairable iMac, or maybe I should say a high cost to repair iMac, doesn't have an impact. I see the impact as very negative in a number of ways. For one it encourages consumers to buy long term warranties which are of debatable value. The second consideration is that disposable electronics do impact the environment, either through contamination of one sort or the other or via excess production to replace viable units that have failed prematurely. The third problem is the lack of customization, in this case adding RAM or internal storage that can effectively extend the life of any machine.

To look at this another way, I've never voted for a democrat in my life. So I don't consider myself an ignorant liberal out of touch with reality, however that doesn't mean the environment isn't important to me. The iMac in my mind puts up to many roadblocks that prevent owners from being responsible users of electronics. I actually detest the disposable mentality that much of society has these days and really wonder about the people that buy things like iPhones every year. It is sad really, I've seen lawn mowers thrown out because someone was too lazy to change the spark plug. Is that really the type of world we want to promote?
post #150 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You might have a point if the iMac shipped as a single board machine, but it doesn't. Rather it ships with a power supply and a hard drive a separate items, even the RAM is a separate component.

 

Power supply is a perfect example. If you've been in an iMac you know the power supply is an open-frame design. If it was user-accessible, they would have to add metal to prevent shocks like in ordinary PCs. The extra casing then requires a separate fan for proper ventilation. So you've now had to build millions of extra metal cases and fans. Keep in mind that fans have a large environmental impact because they require copper windings, precision bearings and also rare-earth magnets.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is a bit of a stretch. First trucks are often ran reliable for much longer than the common car.

 

See, you have to qualify your statement. Trucks actually last a shorter time on the road, just look at the age of fleet vehicles versus personal cars. They drive many more miles over that same period. The economics then favor replacement of powertrain components because they wear out before the frame rusts, plastic hoses fail, seats fall apart, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
For one it encourages consumers to buy long term warranties which are of debatable value.

Extended warranties actually promote more durable products by shifting the costs on to the manufacturer. If the product doesn't break, they profit. If the customer is footing the repair bill, they profit when it breaks. This was the subject of much study in the field of airplane engines. It was found that manufacturer service agreements had more direct cash costs, but led to a overall savings because engines were better maintained and more reliable: there was no incentive for the airline to put off work, and the manufacturer didn't want to foot the bill for emergency repairs. Another example is printers where you lease by the page. For some reason when they foot the bill for replacing the toner and ink, the cartridges need a lot less replacing.

 

The cost-benefit tradeoff is something that requires analysis on a whole population basis. Being patriotic or feeling like you should repair something yourself may benefit you, but on average is detrimental to the overall use of resources.

post #151 of 198

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Not in an Apple environment, it can’t. :mad::grumble:

 

Freaking… what in the world is the problem with Apple that they won’t do network attached iTunes Libraries?! I mean, yeah, they want to sell more Macs, but you’d NEED a Mac to format said iTunes Library and add content to it in the first place. Just let me plug a hard drive into my AirPort Extreme and push content to an Apple TV…

 

That would be nice.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
 

In order to appeal to the school market, I'd say Apple needs a $799 iMac or a Mac mini plus display combination for the same or less.  

 

But apple doesn't cater to the low end, and that tends to be what schools buy.  So unless it is a machine with last year's or older specs, it will have to be crippled in some way (display, memory, HDD, etc.) for Apple to hold their margins.

 

Years ago the imac started around $1000 with a 17" display or something around there. Education pricing was typically $100 off. It could happen, but I don't know if it's likely. Any kind of integrated graphics would work for an entry model. It doesn't have to use iris pro.

post #152 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by konqerror View Post

Power supply is a perfect example. If you've been in an iMac you know the power supply is an open-frame design. If it was user-accessible, they would have to add metal to prevent shocks like in ordinary PCs.
It also means the power supply is cheaper to build so it makes replacement when it does fail more rational.
Quote:
The extra casing then requires a separate fan for proper ventilation. So you've now had to build millions of extra metal cases and fans. Keep in mind that fans have a large environmental impact because they require copper windings, precision bearings and also rare-earth magnets.


See, you have to qualify your statement. Trucks actually last a shorter time on the road, just look at the age of fleet vehicles versus personal cars. They drive many more miles over that same period. The economics then favor replacement of powertrain components because they wear out before the frame rusts, plastic hoses fail, seats fall apart, etc.
Fleet vehicles don't even come into this discussion. If you look at the age of all commercial vehicles you will see a different story.
Quote:

Extended warranties actually promote more durable products by shifting the costs on to the manufacturer.
Baloney! The history of extended warranties is pretty clear, the primary motivation is a separate income stream for the manufacture. This is especially the case with electronics where infant mortality is the primary cause of system failures. For the most part extended warranties are pure profit for the companies offering them in the electronics industry.
Quote:
If the product doesn't break, they profit. If the customer is footing the repair bill, they profit when it breaks. This was the subject of much study in the field of airplane engines. It was found that manufacturer service agreements had more direct cash costs, but led to a overall savings because engines were better maintained and more reliable: there was no incentive for the airline to put off work, and the manufacturer didn't want to foot the bill for emergency repairs.
What does the maintenance of an aircraft engine have to do with this discussion?
Quote:
Another example is printers where you lease by the page. For some reason when they foot the bill for replacing the toner and ink, the cartridges need a lot less replacing.

The cost-benefit tradeoff is something that requires analysis on a whole population basis. Being patriotic or feeling like you should repair something yourself may benefit you, but on average is detrimental to the overall use of resources.
Your mind has been corrupted! Any business I've worked with always repairs its capital equipment, especially if that equipment is critical to its business. A copier or printer is nothing more than a service like having a janitor come in to clean the floors.
post #153 of 198
The problem is the display. In these years of economic crisis, people return to the (wise) behavior of not throwing away stuff that works. If you bought an awesome display two years ago, why should you replace it if you want a powerful Mac? The options for a display-less Mac are either the Mini (with lower specs than the iMac) or the Mac Pro (usually priced to another market segment).

Going for a "low cost" iMac will be just a Mac Mini with an attached display, and that will be another failure.

The way to go is to release the top-of-the-line iMac, with the fastest CPU and the fastest GPU but without a display. That's what computer users wish today.
post #154 of 198
Originally Posted by ecs View Post
The problem is the display. In these years of economic crisis, people return to the (wise) behavior of not throwing away stuff that works. If you bought an awesome display two years ago, why should you replace it if you want a powerful Mac?

 

I get the feeling that you’ve asked this before and ignored the multiple times you’ve been told the iMac functions as a standalone display for exactly this purpose…

 

Maybe I’m wrong, but someone keeps asking it, so I apologize if it wasn’t you.


The way to go is not an xMac, or Apple would have done it.

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 #155 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I get the feeling that you’ve asked this before and ignored the multiple times you’ve been told the iMac functions as a standalone display for exactly this purpose…

Maybe I’m wrong, but someone keeps asking it, so I apologize if it wasn’t you.


The way to go is not an xMac, or Apple would have done it.
I believe the iMac AIO concept is outside what the market demands nowadays, but I've no idea if I'm the person you mention. Anyway, your solution doesn't fix the problem: if you have a relatively new and big display already (and many folks have it because it's been one of the trends these years), the only way of not throwing it away is to use it for dual head. Being forced to get a new display when you have a (perhaps) greater one is nonsense nowadays.

It's also nonsense to lower the performance specs of the iMac. Computer users need performance. The ones who don't need performance have already moved to tablets.

I see the market message quite clear: if I want a computer, I want a powerful one (otherwise I'd get an iPad). But reasonably priced, and without stuff I already have. And the display is one thing most folks have already.

EDIT: get real, Apple uses the iMac display for scaling the product line. In other words: "you want a 4GB discrete GPU? Well, great, just also get a big display from us". They scale the product line by increasing the price adding stuff you don't need. This mechanism was fine when there were no tablets. But nowadays people who don't need a powerful Mac, get an iPad. Powerful configurations cannot come with unneeded stuff any longer. This way of scaling the product line isn't valid anymore.
Edited by ecs - 10/14/13 at 11:23pm
post #156 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post
 

 

1. You alone say -- with absolute confidence and certainty -- that the 5c has "failed". Do you know Apple's internal strategy? Its sales numbers for the new handset? Whether or not the device is meeting Apple's expectations? No you do not. Maintaining good stock on them doesn't equate to failure. Assumption is not the same as fact. Get that?

 

2. It's the 'second-tier' model. No different price or position than last year's second-tier model. Instead of continuing the iPhone 5 unchanged, they differentiated it from the top-tier model (and lowered costs) by changing the casing. Introduced something new and fun to the model line. You haven't touched one, obviously. They are neither "budget" nor "cheap" construction.

 

3. Yours isn't an argument, it's "contrariness". If you can't see it, that's a different matter.

 

 

The answer to 1) would be seen in cuts in production, and high inventory. We will actually know on Oct 28th when Apple will release their results for september, the phrase to listen for is "we ended the quarter with X weeks of forward looking inventory". 

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #157 of 198
Originally Posted by ecs View Post
Anyway, your solution doesnt fix the problem: if you have a relatively new and big display already

 

This is neither a problem nor a concern for anyone. Really, it isn’t. And they don’t have a greater one if they’re just now buying an iMac. They have the greater one after having purchased the iMac.

 
…Apple uses the iMac display for scaling the product line.

 

For offering two display sizes, you mean.

 
In other words: "you want a 4GB discrete GPU? Well, great, just also get a big display from us". They scale the product line by increasing the price adding stuff you don't need. Powerful configurations cannot come with unneeded stuff any longer.

 

Then don’t buy that stuff. Should be pretty simple, right? Do you really want a terrible CPU and moderately good GPU? No, you want a good CPU and moderately good GPU.

 
 This way of scaling the product line isn't valid anymore.

 

Well, obviously not. Since they just. keep. selling. more.

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 #158 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

For offering two display sizes, you mean.

Nope. The display in the iMac is used to scale all the desktop product line: If the iMac had low performance specs, its price should be low, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify a higher price by adding a display. OTOH, if the iMac had no display, it would be nonsense to ask $2500 for an i7 with a good GPU and SSD. It's the display what lets Apple ask $2500 for that configuration.

So, Apple scales the desktop product line by making the midrange machine an AIO. If you want a midrange, you pay more, with the justification that you also get a display which you didn't need.

But this way of scaling the product line is no longer valid.

It's not a rare personal view. A lot more people share my views.
post #159 of 198
Originally Posted by ecs View Post
But this way of scaling the product line is no longer valid. It's not a rare personal view. A lot more people share my views.

 

This “a lot more” is the same number of people who want an xMac. 

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 #160 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

The problem is the display. In these years of economic crisis, people return to the (wise) behavior of not throwing away stuff that works. If you bought an awesome display two years ago, why should you replace it if you want a powerful Mac? The options for a display-less Mac are either the Mini (with lower specs than the iMac) or the Mac Pro (usually priced to another market segment).
This is a real issue for many. The economy plus the focus on post PC realities means that the whole mentality of the desktop business is changing rapidly. I really see Apple getting caught with their collective pants around the ankles. The only bit of light here is that the IMacs sales where flat while the Mini and pro sales are in the gutter, but that was info from two years ago. I really can't imagine the iMac is doing much better today.
Quote:
Going for a "low cost" iMac will be just a Mac Mini with an attached display, and that will be another failure.
Yep! It is a clear indication that Apple doesn't have a handle on the economics of the marketplace. D
Quote:
The way to go is to release the top-of-the-line iMac, with the fastest CPU and the fastest GPU but without a display. That's what computer users wish today.

Well no, what they need is a true desktop class machine optimized to be cost effective. It needs to fill the gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro performance wise. So let's call this a quad core in the 70 watt range.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple expected to offer more affordable 'budget' iMac next year