or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple makes new low-end 1.4GHz iMac official with $1,099 starting price
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple makes new low-end 1.4GHz iMac official with $1,099 starting price - Page 4

post #121 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post
 

 

Sure you can. 

 

But you can't let your lack of basic reading comprehension and search skills to get in the way of a convenient straw man, can you?

My bad, I missed the "under 7200rpm" category. Still, those drives are by far in the minority compared to 7200rpm models (752 hits for 7200rpm, 42 hits for 5400rpm). Most other low-end desktops these days (see for example the lowest-end Lenovo ThinkCentres or the Celeron-equipped HP all-in-ones) seem to come with at least a 7200rpm drive.

post #122 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

us customers are happy to pay it.

I wonder how many ARE "happy to pay it" vs. how many are like me? I GRUDGINGLY pay Apple's prices because that's the only way to get the Apple OS experience, but I wince every time I do and it wouldn't take a ton of improvement in Windows to sway me back.

Price is also the single reason I've had zero success persuading family, friends and neighbours to buy Macs so we can share ecosystem benefits like FaceTime and Messages etc. They don't attach enough value to those activities to justify buying a Mercedes instead of a Honda.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #123 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Sorry to point out, but you really must be quite arrogant -- not to mention completely out to lunch -- if you think that Apple couldn't do or hasn't done an analysis of the trade-offs between price and quantity, controlling for phycological factors, for a product that they've been producing and selling apparently quite successfully for the past 16 years.:lol:

This is true,  I have no access to Apple's supply lines or any ability to do a real analysis.  However,  by this logic,  we should NEVER question ANY company's product moves, as we, as individuals, clearly have no ability to run an internal analysis for any company.  And therefore, by extension, companies must NEVER make tactical missteps, being they have nearly infinite (compared to little-'ole-us) resources to plan their strategies.

post #124 of 166
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
Price is also the single reason I’ve had zero success persuading family, friends and neighbors to buy Macs…

 

“Only rich people can afford cheap windows.”

 

The coincidence is lovely, but the saying predates computers by quite some time.

post #125 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Ah!!!!!!!!

My brain shut down- sorry. :(

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 #126 of 166
And Apple / Europe did it again, price in US :1099$ = 809 EURO

Not in reality, in Europe we pay 1129 EURO = 1,535$

Difference = 436$ extra compared to the US price!

When is this ridiculous pricing (taxing) stuff going to end? with Iphone/Ipad the differences are even much higher!

So...be happy you US guys :-)
post #127 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

$200 savings is $200 savings. Especially you don't need the power- like a simple workstation at an office. When our 2007 craps out in our Hawaii lab- I'll be getting this one. Only checks mail, numbers, and FileMaker. The power supply will die before the specs are obsolete for that use.

Rogi- that 2007 runs circles around our 2013 $500 Dell workstations (no monitor) regarding opening FileMaker, opening mail vs dell opening outlook, and opening numbers vs dell opening excel. Only reason our IT guy buys dell is I have to run sharp desk for printing our reports. Of course, I don't write reports so I have an imac 1wink.gif

I have more faith than you that Macs are reliable, at least they used to be. My uncle still has a blueberry iMac from 1999 that fires up and connects to the internets just fine. 

post #128 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

I have more faith than you that Macs are reliable, at least they used to be. My uncle still has a blueberry iMac from 1999 that fires up and connects to the internets just fine. 

I'm still using a 2001 iMac every day. I've connected a 16TB RAID to it via FW400 (the RAID also supports USB 3.0 and eSATA) for my iTunes Server and my Time Machine backups. This works flawlessly from other Macs in the house and the Apple TV. I would like something a bit faster than FW400 and 100Mbps Ethernet to the AEBS which is why I'm holding out for the Mac Mini to be updated, although I may not buy the newest Mac Mini once it's updated but rather use that to get a better price on an older one.

I wonder how many consumer Win PCs from 2001 are still in use.

"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 #129 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Schools, students, offices.

 

I'm not nuts about some of the hardware aspects, but I don't get the puzzlement either over who these could have possibly been aimed at.  A lot of situations have tight budgets and don't need horsepower. 

post #130 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvanleuvan View Post

This is true,  I have no access to Apple's supply lines or any ability to do a real analysis.  However,  by this logic,  we should NEVER question ANY company's product moves, as we, as individuals, clearly have no ability to run an internal analysis for any company.  And therefore, by extension, companies must NEVER make tactical missteps, being they have nearly infinite (compared to little-'ole-us) resources to plan their strategies.
This is what Jony Ive says:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/30/jonathan-ive-revenue-good-design
Quote:
Apple's goal is not to make money, but to make good products, said Jonathan Ive, senior vice president of industrial design at Apple, speaking at the British Embassy's Creative Summit.

"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money. It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money," he said.

He explained how, in the 90s, Apple was very close to bankruptcy and that "you learn a lot about vital corporations through non-vital corporations". When Steve Jobs returned to the company in 1997, his focus was not on making money -- "His observation was that the products weren't good enough. His resolve was to make better products." This was a different approach from other attempts to turn the company around, which had focused first and foremost on cost savings and revenue generation.
post #131 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm still using a 2001 iMac every day. I've connected a 16TB RAID to it via FW400 (the RAID also supports USB 3.0 and eSATA) for my iTunes Server and my Time Machine backups. This works flawlessly from other Macs in the house and the Apple TV. I would like something a bit faster than FW400 and 100Mbps Ethernet to the AEBS which is why I'm holding out for the Mac Mini to be updated, although I may not buy the newest Mac Mini once it's updated but rather use that to get a better price on an older one.

I wonder how many consumer Win PCs from 2001 are still in use.

I use my 2008 aluminum MacBook every day. I have it hooked up to a 27" Cinema Display, I run all the latest software. I can do video editing, photo editing, publishing, Netflix, HBO Go.. It may not be super fast at complex stuff, and I can't run the latest games (i'm not a big gamer though so bfd), but I have no reason to give it up. It still has a really good resale value, it's worth more than most of those new crap PC laptops or slaptops or netbooks on the market :lol: 

post #132 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
 

[…] A lot of situations have tight budgets and don't need horsepower. 

 

But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?

 

I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.

 

Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #133 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“Only rich people can afford cheap windows.”

The coincidence is lovely, but the saying predates computers by quite some time.

That's a really old saying. Back in the day the size of your house didn't show wealth, but how many windows you had did.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #134 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?

 

I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.

 

Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.

 

Lorin, I agree with you, and also with what you say about not "happily" forking over Apple prices but begrudgingly paying them.  There is a difference.

 

But I don't think Apple is confused.  I think they just see X as who they're aiming at and not Y.

 

 Sadly, historically Apple's lower cost products often prove to still be an expensive decision for those who need convincing the most, yet ironically have no special needs, and under-featured and powered for those who would pony up without hesitation had they only not been missing/lacking/underpowered by their sometimes fairly small amount.  Nobody in the low end PC niche knows or cares or cares to know that the RAM or SSD is soldered on and not upgradable, like the battery.  Yet Apple users will all argue those points in a $1,300 laptop.  Low end Windows users generally buy computers at Costco, literally and figuratively.

 

We Apple users will begrudgingly pay a premium because we know a lot about the products.  Apple has a hard time finding that other large market: like your/our neighbors who want a computer but don't know enough to care and don't want to want more or to care more if it costs that much more.  I think with these iMacs they're not reaching down that far and know that.  They just still won't get those folks.

post #135 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm still using a 2001 iMac every day. I've connected a 16TB RAID to it via FW400 (the RAID also supports USB 3.0 and eSATA) for my iTunes Server and my Time Machine backups. This works flawlessly from other Macs in the house and the Apple TV. I would like something a bit faster than FW400 and 100Mbps Ethernet to the AEBS which is why I'm holding out for the Mac Mini to be updated, although I may not buy the newest Mac Mini once it's updated but rather use that to get a better price on an older one.

I wonder how many consumer Win PCs from 2001 are still in use.

Anecdotes of reliable machines are nice, but are there any statistics available? After all, the ISS is still rocking some old Thinkpads from 2003 (http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/How-are-laptops-used-on-the-International-Space-Station?share=1).

post #136 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Anecdotes of reliable machines are nice, but are there any statistics available? After all, the ISS is still rocking some old Thinkpads from 2003 (http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/How-are-laptops-used-on-the-International-Space-Station?share=1).

That's a good run for the ISS but that's pretty much as far as you can get from consumer use as possible.

"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 #137 of 166
Really ridiculous move! For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol. The real deal would be to cut the prices of the high-end models
post #138 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by cicconegreek View Post

Really ridiculous move! For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol. The real deal would be to cut the prices of the high-end models

Which they recently did with the MBPs. You're welcome.

"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 #139 of 166
Memory not upgradable in this machine. I understand doing that in thin laptops but not sure why Apple does it with desktops.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1746386
post #140 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Which they recently did with the MBPs. You're welcome.
so why didn't they just do that with the iMacs? 1confused.gif
post #141 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

so why didn't they just do that with the iMacs? 1confused.gif

Priced too low at the moment to make it a reasonable move would be my guess. Remember that desktops don't sell as well as notebooks which means there are a huge number of reasons as to how they sold and marketed. If Apple thought they could make more money on all the iMacs sold by dropping the prices across the board they would do it.

"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 #142 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Priced too low at the moment to make it a reasonable move would be my guess. Remember that desktops don't sell as well as notebooks which means there are a huge number of reasons as to how they sold and marketed. If Apple thought they could make more money on all the iMacs sold by dropping the prices across the board they would do it.
Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable? I'd tell people to spend $200 more and get a much better machine. Or if they don't need the big screen, just buy a MBA.

But maybe that's the point. Apple just using this model to upsell to a better model. A lot of people said that was the point of the 5C, to upsell you to a 5S.
post #143 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable? I'd tell people to spend $200 more and get a much better machine. Or if they don't need the big screen, just buy a MBA.

But maybe that's the point. Apple just using this model to upsell to a better model. A lot of people said that was the point of the 5C, to upsell you to a 5S.

1) I wouldn't recommend anything other than the most advanced iPhone or iPad but that doesn't mean I think there is no reason for them to exist on the market or that they are crap.

2) A lot of people say a lot of shit but that doesn't make it true, like when people said that iOS 6(?) on iPhone 3GS(?) was to force people to upgrade. Do you really that makes good business sense? Do you not see how simply not offering an update is a better and less costly move? So, no, in no way did they design and build the 5C specifically so people wouldn't buy it.

"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 #144 of 166
Originally Posted by cicconegreek View Post
For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol.

 

Oh, we're laughing, but not at the computers.

post #145 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable?

 

I think that only a small percentage of users would buy this machine for home and private use. This is not a home computer, although you could see some exceptions. It looks to me that it is addressed more to schools, administration and businesses where one buys a closed appliance that just works without caring about internals and upgrade. In such settings the computers are often being bought in significant volume, therefore a difference of $100 or $200 can quickly become quite large in total.

 

The whole situation gives the impression of an experiment from the part of Apple. It costs them nothing (the machine design was already established) and it always has chances to succeed more than I or we think here. If it does, good for them. If it does not, no one is going to cry; it will not be the Cube all over again.

post #146 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

$200 savings is $200 savings. Especially you don't need the power- like a simple workstation at an office. When our 2007 craps out in our Hawaii lab- I'll be getting this one. Only checks mail, numbers, and FileMaker. The power supply will die before the specs are obsolete for that use.

Rogi- that 2007 runs circles around our 2013 $500 Dell workstations (no monitor) regarding opening FileMaker, opening mail vs dell opening outlook, and opening numbers vs dell opening excel. Only reason our IT guy buys dell is I have to run sharp desk for printing our reports. Of course, I don't write reports so I have an imac 1wink.gif

And the power supply can be replaced cheaply. Mine was replaced on my six-year old iMac this year for about £80.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #147 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElFig2012 View Post

And Apple / Europe did it again, price in US :1099$ = 809 EURO

Not in reality, in Europe we pay 1129 EURO = 1,535$

Difference = 436$ extra compared to the US price!

When is this ridiculous pricing (taxing) stuff going to end? with Iphone/Ipad the differences are even much higher!

So...be happy you US guys :-)

You can regurgitate the currency exchange argument that was bored to death many decades ago, move to America or shut up.

You chose the former. You chose poorly.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #148 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

$200 savings is $200 savings. Especially you don't need the power- like a simple workstation at an office. When our 2007 craps out in our Hawaii lab- I'll be getting this one. Only checks mail, numbers, and FileMaker. The power supply will die before the specs are obsolete for that use.


Rogi- that 2007 runs circles around our 2013 $500 Dell workstations (no monitor) regarding opening FileMaker, opening mail vs dell opening outlook, and opening numbers vs dell opening excel. Only reason our IT guy buys dell is I have to run sharp desk for printing our reports. Of course, I don't write reports so I have an imac 1wink.gif
I have more faith than you that Macs are reliable, at least they used to be. My uncle still has a blueberry iMac from 1999 that fires up and connects to the internets just fine. 

I know that blackberries pre-date his blueberry iMac, but does his blueberry iMac pre-date Blackberries? 😃
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #149 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

 

But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?

I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.

Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.

Lorin, I agree with you, and also with what you say about not "happily" forking over Apple prices but begrudgingly paying them.  There is a difference.

But I don't think Apple is confused.  I think they just see X as who they're aiming at and not Y.

 Sadly, historically Apple's lower cost products often prove to still be an expensive decision for those who need convincing the most, yet ironically have no special needs, and under-featured and powered for those who would pony up without hesitation had they only not been missing/lacking/underpowered by their sometimes fairly small amount.  Nobody in the low end PC niche knows or cares or cares to know that the RAM or SSD is soldered on and not upgradable, like the battery.  Yet Apple users will all argue those points in a $1,300 laptop.  Low end Windows users generally buy computers at Costco, literally and figuratively.

We Apple users will begrudgingly pay a premium because we know a lot about the products.  Apple has a hard time finding that other large market: like your/our neighbors who want a computer but don't know enough to care and don't want to want more or to care more if it costs that much more.  I think with these iMacs they're not reaching down that far and know that.  They just still won't get those folks.

That's where the ARM Mac will come into play.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #150 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by cicconegreek View Post

Really ridiculous move! For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol. The real deal would be to cut the prices of the high-end models

They did that, too, in the UK with the iMacs.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #151 of 166
I'd like a Mac that went the OTHER way; skimp on the processor. Have 128 - 256 Gigs of hard drive, but a good, dedicated graphics card.

The Mac Mini used to be an option but the Graphics card is more for Server routines now.

This is a step backwards for people wanting to create Kiosks and take advantage of the real-time graphics of Quartz Composer.

I suppose my best shot will be when they take the A7 and package it for a DVR device or some kind of home gaming system that runs iPhone apps. With Metal and Swift -- it's expected that there could be as much as a 10X improvement in "game like" processing.

Kind of crazy that in some regards, an iPhone can beat the pants off of an iMac. Apple is now a cell phone company that offers computers.
post #152 of 166
At $999 this would be a great move (they really should replace the eMac). At $1,099 it's tough to understand.
post #153 of 166

No way at $1099. Maybe at $899. Priced at $799 with a quad-core i5, non-Mac users would be tempted to take a look, if they even knew about it. Since Apple doesn't really advertise much how will anybody hear about it? 

 

Mavericks and Yosemite are really the only reasons anybody would want to buy an Apple computer over a Windoz box. Apple has failed in a gigantic way to capitalize on the failure of Windoz 8. The old Get A Mac campaign was brilliant. It made people think. With the word spreading about how much Windoz users hated 8 it would have been prudent for Apple to strike. Instead they continued to operate as a phone manufacturer instead of as a computer manufacturer.

 

It is clear to me that Apple is working towards moving their mobile OS to the desktop. I don't think they will merge iOS and OS X. They will eventually make iOS so useful that it will have everything any desktop user will ever need. It is already close to being there right now. It just needs a file system. With the improvement of ARM processors in a couple of years things like Final Cut Pro will be able to function well on them. This isn't a bad move. It would also facilitate cloud computing where the power of one's device isn't as important. 

post #154 of 166
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
Mavericks and Yosemite are really the only reasons anybody would want to buy an Apple computer over a Windoz box.


Nope.

 

It is clear to me that Apple is working towards moving their mobile OS to the desktop.


NOPE, but there will be multitouch desktops.

 
 It just needs a file system. 

 

It has a file system. You don't have a clue what you're taking about.

 

"A file system that the user can..."


You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 
It would also facilitate cloud computing where the power of one's device isn't as important. 

 

Yuck.

 

I prefer my cloud as a conduit for syncing local content only. Shame iCloud doesn't do that.

post #155 of 166

LG now sells a Chromebase (all in one) with a 1.4 GHz Haswell Celeron for $349. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-Chromebase-22CV241-W

 

It's not the most awesome machine but I would buy it over the iMac day in and day out. If Apple is going to make a low spec machine then they had better consider how other low spec machines are priced. For e-mail, web surfing, shopping, video chats, and simple office work there is no need to buy any Apple machine priced so high. 

 

The same can be said for tablets. At first Apple was the leader with the best of everything related to tablets. They could justify their prices. Now there are other manufacturers with better screens. Apple's lead in the operating system area is debatable. Android has lots of apps now that are just as good as anything on iOS. To anybody not tied into the Apple ecosystem the alternatives give more bang for their buck. 

post #156 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

LG now sells a Chromebase (all in one) with a 1.4 GHz Haswell Celeron […] If Apple is going to make a low spec machine.

This new iMac isn't "a low spec machine" when you're comparing it to a Celeron.

"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 #157 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

No way at $1099. Maybe at $899. Priced at $799 with a quad-core i5...

1) Are you saying it won't sell at that price?

2) If you're going to start listing lower-prices and higher specs without any consideration as to how this would maximize Apple's iMac profits then why not say 99¢ and with the 24-core Xeons?

"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 #158 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


They could have if they'd dropped the RAM to 4GB and they probably should have. I'm glad they didn't compromise on the IPS display though. I don't get the processor prices unless Intel gave them a huge discount:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75030/Intel-Core-i5-4260U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/76640/Intel-Core-i5-4570R-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz

The dual-core CPU in the base model is priced more than the quad in the next model up. I suppose if they saved $100 on the CPU and $25 on the HDD, that helps them cut the retail price by $200. This is the same CPU in the entry Macbook Air and it uses mobile RAM.

The reason to do this is that the PC market is slowing down so a lower entry point will help boost unit volume. It is an odd update not having the rest of the lineup refreshed but it's better than nothing.

IPS panels in the 21" size are pretty cheap at this point, and as I recall people noticed the switch to cheaper screens with the G5 era imacs. G4's used IPS displays. G5s went to TN at larger display sizes. I'm going to see what I can find on those cpus, as that it seems unlikely to me that they would use the same ones as the Air. With the old i3 models a few years ago, they used cpus that were a little over $100.

post #159 of 166

It is true that an i5 dual core 1.4 GHz chip is better than a 1.4 GHz dual core Celeron. Exactly how are people using 1.4 GHz i5 machines? Do video editors choose the 1.4 GHz models? Do audio producers want these all in one dual core machines? If so then Apple is making something worthwhile to such people. 

 

If the people who buy the low end iMac are just using it for e-mail, surfing the web, shopping, making video calls, watching movies, and doing basic office work, then the lower priced iMac is really an expensive machine just to do those tasks. 

post #160 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm going to see what I can find on those cpus, as that it seems unlikely to me that they would use the same ones as the Air.

It's the i5-4260U, same as the entry Air and it uses LPDDR3 RAM:

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/06/imac-performance-june-2014/

They maybe get volume discounts because of the Air, which will sell over 1m units per quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels 
It is true that an i5 dual core 1.4 GHz chip is better than a 1.4 GHz dual core Celeron.

It's not 1.4GHz, it's somewhere between 1.4-2.7GHz depending on temperature and the desktop has enough cooling to deal with 95W so 15W is easy. It's also 4-thread so it behaves like a quad-core i5 as they tend to have 4-threads too. The quad-i7s have 8-threads. The Celeron 2.6GHz performs around the same:

http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz

That's a $42 chip so might have been cheaper but only has HD graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels 
If the people who buy the low end iMac are just using it for e-mail, surfing the web, shopping, making video calls, watching movies, and doing basic office work, then the lower priced iMac is really an expensive machine just to do those tasks.

Previously the entry model was $200 more so this improves the situation. $1099 isn't all that expensive for basic tasks because it'll typically last a few years. It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years. I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple makes new low-end 1.4GHz iMac official with $1,099 starting price