New iMacs offer more value than competition - report - Page 2

Because it's not?

Being a mac fan doesn't mean you have to blindly accept everything Apple does. They make some great decisions and some terrible ones, I see nothing wrong with commenting on both.

It is more powerful than the discrete card anyway just get the better card 4850 or better still go buy a PC.

That's exactly the point - iLife is way better than anything (and everything) that comes with the other two computers, so it is an advantage for Apple. Now maybe the category should have been listed as "software in the box." Then there would be no argument, correct?

Sooo, what is the point now? What changed your opinion? Or are you just doing something pointless...

I don't see why people can't accept the fact that the iMac is a good deal, compared with the closest similar offerings from Dell and HP. Again, it's for those who want the convenience of a good performing all-in-one computer.

If you want to argue that Apple should make an affordable headless Mac, then that's fine (and I agree with you - I don't think they should make a bare bones budget computer, but I'd like a mid-priced tower). That doesn't take away from the fact that the computers that Apple does make are valued appropriately.

novely hardware? what do you mean by that?
please elaborate...

Nice figure of speech. But yea, I understood the point of the article perfectly, hence my first paragraph. And these advantages you speak of for all-in-ones (desktops, naturally)? There are none. Not when you custom build. If you like all-in-ones from manufacturers (and the inflexability/limitations that come with them), that's great, but thats not the only option out there. If you're looking to obtain the ultimate value (per dollar) in computer hardware, building is the only way.

Notebooks sinks this theory.

I'm looking to buy the Imac. Work is paying and so I'm not that price sensitive. Just offends the sensibilities a bit. I also fear that it will be dated very quickly and the video card issue does worry me and I'm totally NOT a power user or naturally a gamer.

I paid a great deal for an SSD Macbook Air, which I love as its so portable, has a great screen and keyboard (great for travel or even around the house). I enjoy it every day.

Nice machine the MBA, but I find it overheats and stalls and it particularly weak at video processing. If If I occasionally can't watch a video in avi, quicktime or a recorded HD video (using a tuner) on a computer bought in 2007 its worrying and that is what I see with the MBA.

So the integrated graphics issue is troubling to me as I know I will use a TV tuner (already have one).

All computers get dated, but I would have liked a strong video processor and a quad processor as that is what I see at best buy on cheaper machines.

(P.S. Blue ray is a pacing fad for film/tv as we will be all electronic distribution in a few years. So that does not bother me. However, I'm sure there are posters here who wanted it for storage options.)

Youre wasting your time trying to explain the value of a mac to some of these people. Ive tried many times. All they see is sticker price, the Dell or HP is cheaper...its better. They cant understand that the value is more than the sticker price. Personally a free PC computer is worthless to me, I could use it for a door stop, but other than that I dont even want it. If a computer doesnt come with all the benefits of Apple design, OSX, iLife and iWork its useless, it has no value at all.

Yeah, that no TV tuner in the iMac really does it for me.

I'd like something in-between a Mac Mini and an iMac but Apple appears to believe that I don't need such a system and that they can't design one that is stylish enough for their tastes.

I absolutely love my iMacs... and while this article doesn't mention it, OS X is priceless - I mean, there's no comparison.

- Great Value
- Great hardware AND software
- Happy Customer

Why does it say the 24 inch iMac has LED? Does it?

Do you see that this is an unusual case, or are you suggesting that large percentages of computer buyers are going to be putting together/custom building their own computers? That is rediculous.

Or do you suggest that people go to independent custom builders.
My mom did that 7 years ago. A friend of a friend had a buisness that built her a windows machine and saved her TONS of money. Except that it never worked right. The builder came over 5-6 times to make repairs and adjustemnts. Eventually, my mom got tired of calling him... and got an iMac. I'm sure you could convince her that she got robbed, but 7 years later it still does what she needs every day.

While I agree that the report seems tilted to favor iMacs, that's more a result of it being easier to tilt a report in favor of Macs than in favor of its competitors. The general point AppleInsider is making is that the first-glance VALUE of an iMac "relatively" (read the note on the chart) leads - not eclipses - the competition.

Remember two things:

1) most consumers pretend to do their homework on processor speed, RAM, graphics, etc. but in reality care most about the final off-the-shelf price and overall impression of quality/performance. This report "roughly" summarizes how iMacs might come out on top in this way. Purchasing iMacs is easier math than a comparable Dell/HP. The inclusion of iLife may be questionable; but how easily it impresses most consumers and sells as working right out of the box no extra cost or setup, compared to the messy media kits in Windows machines makes it an understandable advantage to include.

2) There are several features not even included in favor of the iMacs that would easily match (if not outweigh) some of the features or models not included for Dell and HP. Not least of which is the iMac being, not just an all-in-one machine, but also a TWO-IN-ONE machine with it's ability to run both OSX and Windows. Start with the sales-pitch that an iMac is almost two computers for the price of one, and you have a VALUE proposition that any model or configuration of Dell/HP machines would struggle to overcome.

This is all ridiculous. I cannot believe my eyes. First of all you are comparing the iMac to a multi touch computer which is relatively new and obviously over priced just due to the fact that it is multi touch. Second There is a Dell for 999 that comes with the 2.66 i7..... with a 256 MB nvidia chipset... so why not mention products that actually have value. Don't compare it to the worst deals a company has. I had high expectations for the imac and mac pro but this is just ridiculous. Terrible comparisons and the study just seems under studied. You can purchase an alienware with similar and or better specs for cheaper than that.

I agree that the new iMac lineup is generally well positioned relative to other all-in-ones.

As an observation on the positioning of the various iMac models, it only costs $50 to upgrade the GT130 (rebranded 9600GSO rebranded 8800GS) to the HD4850 which should completely dominate the GT130. It's a very worthwhile upgrade. I don't know why Apple even bothers offering the GT130, since the small price difference means the GT130 has little value. If they are selling it to consumers for $50, the actual cost difference to them would be even smaller, so they could have just absorbed the cost, deleted the GT130, and offset it with a simplified supply and production chain. The best price/performance GPU in the iMac lineup is definitely the HD4850.

I am not sure this is a problem for Apple. Apple make the best product they can. Their machines are well specked and very 'complete' in terms of the user experience. The iMac is, for most people, a beautiful and even aspirational machine. Apple has stated many times that it is NOT interested in numbers for the sake of numbers. Just about everybody wants Apple to lower its prices and produce niche machines and Apple has repeatedly said it won't do it. Apple makes a big saving through efficient design and a narrow product range. It has ALWAYS been that way. Apple competes entirely on their own terms and the do pretty well. I don't think Apple has a problem at all. I think it is the other way around. 'Most people' have a problem with Apple. (specially the ones frequenting Apple related forums ;-))
You can get a better specked machine for less - it is a fact. But features and purchase price are not the reasons people buy Apple computers. It may be why most people buy PC, but that has little to do with it. Most people who buy Apple computers are very happy about their purchase.

Does everyone not see that it all depends on your viewpoint? The comments are as biased as the article, at least. This comment says inflexibility / limitations - but a "fanboy" could have just as easily said reliability / advantages - because that's what All-in-One means to many, many people.

Obviously we can't hold Apple responsible for the requirements of someone who likes to build their own. And the demographics Apple is after have a lot more to do with people who would NEVER conceive of building a PC than people who would. Yes, Apple is after the people who want All-in-One - what's wrong with that? It appeals to a large segment of the population.

While someone may have done this on this thread (not sure haven't read so much of it), this is a total straw-man argument for the most part.

The iMac is Apple's desktop product, period. The various models should be comparable to what in the PC world is generally referred to as a mid-range desktop tower as well as any "All-in-one" desktops. For higher end desktops, or full towers, or gaming machines, the comparison should be to the Mac Pro.

Personally I have never heard anyone say what you are putting in people's mouths above. Even if some have however, it's certainly a misrepresentation to imply that all people, or all Mac users/supporters etc. do this kind of bait and switch arguing, as you have.

Critics here seem to conveniently exclude information when stating their rants against the iMac.

Yes, there are other manufacturers with higher-horsepower equipment at similar price points. What makes the difference for the majority of Apple owners is the user-experience compared to say a Windows-based computer.

Putting aside the fact that this article makes comparisons between all-in-one machines that the ranters are ignoring, the system stabilities and general higher-quality software offered by OSX is what really makes it a selling point.

I work as a sys-admin with plenty of Windows machines and Win2k3 servers. We just started to introduce iMacs as desktop replacements and productivity improved and help-desk issues have all but disappeared. While the hardware as stated above may not be cutting edge, the overall fit-and-finish, low-footprint, quietness and the disappearance of system and OS problems has management looking at even more replacements.

If you're ranting is about playing Crysis at 130fps, go elsewhere. Apple is focusing on the general consumer and not interested in niche markets.

And if make the argument that Apple can make more money if they make a "cheap" computer or add the most current CPU's & graphics (i.e. "overheating") all I have to do is point to their $25B bank account with their recession-resistant model, and look at Dell, HP, etc makers which make the machines with your preferred hardware yet are fighting for their survival. What more proof does one need that maybe Apple is doing something right?

I for one am quite happy that Apple ignores your rants. They would be in the same hole as the other PC makers if they listened to you.

Because buyers aren't limited to "closest similar offerings". And because apple doesn't offer a machine that is a close similar offering to the PC headless machines, so the comparison is inevitable, it's the choice the consumer makes. Apple made that decision, and they get to deal with the consequences.

A consumer who needs a machine can choose between an iMac, a PC AIO, or a PC headless. Insisting that the headless isn't "closest" isn't going to change the fact that some of those consumers are going to see that the PC headless is the best deal and Apple loses that sale.

Might as well say it's a good deal compared with other machines named after fruits, it's just an artificial and arbitrary distinction.

I find the posts more negative and critical lately....I enjoy the humorous comments the most. I think the majority of the complaints are from the techies arguing over the minutia.

I would like to see a 30" top of the line iMac. A full size keyboard on a 10" MBA, a 15" MBA and a 17" MBA alongside the current 13" MBA and alongside the complete MB and MB line. A new 30" monitor and a DVR in AppleTV.

I own the first intel duo 20" iMac, the first intel iBook 2nd gen ATV and the first gen iPhone all with AppleCare. I upgrade the OS, iLife and iWork every time and only buy Apple SW and hardware. Apple serves me well and with a minimum of headaches, wires and looks good too. I would never consider a Windows or Microsoft product.

Any thoughts?

Yes, compared to other all in one PCs, the iMac is better specs for less money. Slightly.

However, computer shoppers don't limit their choices to AIOs (I don't know anyone who would by that Dell or HP Touchsmart). They don't have to, the way Mac users shopping in a certain price range do. It is compared to "traditional" desktop computers that the iMac looks really bad in terms of value. If you want an AIO, though, go for it.

As it seems that purchasing an expensive Apple requires automatically an Apple Care contract to survive. I couldn't get my machine fixed before taking an AC. During the first year of warranty and 3 repairs later it was still not fixed. I was forced in taking the AC and suddenly it was fixed. I think there is a policy involved, that repairs will be done correctly only if one has an AC.

The not so little local Apple reseller/repair shop was full of machines for repairs, and each time I had to wait a month before my machine was even looked at. Of course a bribe of £50 make you jump the queue, but didn't solve the problem. That didn't made me a happy customer.
Apple care can cost as much as 20% of the initial price.

Every new product comingstraight out of the factory from Apple seems to have faults. Batteries one day, lower slot next, power supply another day, then graphic cards today etc etc.

My £300 PC lasted me 3y with only OS trouble before dying.
My £1500 PB (I had a bit of money before) is now about 4y (although let say 3y old as they finally changed the MB after 1 y), has the same specs as the dead PC, and does the same work. It is just a lot smaller.
Although I like the design but mainly the OS, I will be thinking very hard before splashing that much money again. I probably will go the clone route or Linux.

As for today, there isn't a single model from the Apple catalogue, that will suit my needs and purse. Glossy screen, firewire, no accessories any more.
When one plashes few thousand pounds, I will expect at least the cables to be provided.

Muhahahahahahaha, another ludicrous propagandist drivel... It even seems that for some self-deceptive propagandist the iMac's Intel Core 2 Duo CPU as more "advantages" than an Intel Core 2 Quad (sic)... Pathetic.

Between all these -dishonest intellectually- falsehoods and gross misrepresentations, fact is that anybody with two hands and one hour of spare time can build a PC for half the price of a comparable Mac, with the exact same hardware (minus the shiny case), same brand parts coming from the same factories (Intel, Nvidia, etc), just sold two times more than their casual price by Apple to delusional/self-conditioned fanbois. Keep drinking the kool aid, being in denial for we don't know which reason (brand adulation?) is what make people great and mature.

Most people would never consider building a PC. Most people have no idea how to reinstall an OS. Most people.....etc.

What is your point? That some people can build a PC? Seriously, I'm asking. What does the fact that people can build a PC like a Mac have to do with what Apple should do? What does it have to do with the fact that many, many people want a service desk they can bring their computer into the day it stops working?

You can say people buy Apple because it's shiny. But there are tons of every day people who could care less that it's shiny. They want it because it's not Windows and there's a single provider of support behind it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it now costs a minimum of $1,799 to buy a new Apple computer with a dedicated video card?

-Switchy

What the heck, I'll toss my ramblings into the morass.

1. Apple will NEVER compete on price with a build your own system. Neither does Sony or HP or Dell.

2. Apple puts more money into their systems than merely the CPU, GPU, and RAM. They have nice, expensive cases, well designed power supplies, custom PCBs with high-quality components. They will not be price competitive with manufacturers who use cheap or generic any of those things.

3. Apple spends $$$ and charges their customers for "design". It may be intangible to a large degree. And it won't make Call of Duty run any faster. But when it's done poorly (see Dell), people notice. If you don't care about "design" then you'll be unhappy paying for it.

4. AppleInsider didn't write this comparison. "Oppenheimer analyst Yair Reiner" did. AI just summarized it and provided some tables from it. And the tables are clearly watermarked "Draft". I think it's perfectly valid to point out where his(?) analysis falls short, but don't lay it on AI.

All that being said, it is clear there are faster CPUs available that it'd be nice to have seen in these machines - especially CPUs with more cores with 10.6 around the corner that is supposed to support multiple cores better. Apple's never been a GPU leader, but these GPUs are a step up from what they had before even if they do lag the Windows world.

Apple is struggling with the pace of CPU and GPU developments in the Windows world. If they keep a slower release pace, they'll perpetually be behind the power curve. But if they try to keep up and release new products every quarter, they may not recoup their development costs between releases. Them's the breaks when you go with the commodity Intel platform. If it bothers you to be behind the curve, then buy a Windows machine. My white, 1.8GHz iMac is still serving me fine. IMHO, todays machines are so overpowered (except for 3D games) that a few MHz here or there doesn't really make a difference.

- Jasen.

A flawed comparison.

Yes, the iMac is decent, nay good, against other all-in-ones.

Sadly that's not what many people care about, when they can get a standalone machine for a fraction of the price that outperforms it. They can choose the monitor they want. Everything they want.

Mac OS X and iLife might be worth $200 on top of the standard price, but that's it. Apple should stand behind their hardware and offer 3 year warranties as standard.

My point is that when it comes to hardware comparison, claiming that "iMacs offer more value than competition" is simply a self-deceptive and dishonest garbage, and thus need some kind of ludicrous chart to deceive its audience. Now I have no problem with people loving their Mac (I love OSX too), as far as they remain intellectually honest, i.e. does not act like blind and servile fanbois or in this case like a propagandist on a payroll. When you look at hardware upgrade offers from Apple they are nearly always a scam (once again at least -if not more!- twice the casual price) and simply an insult to their customers, with unfortunately some people asking for more.

n.b.: anybody can still drop $10 to any computer shop to have its hardware parts mounted, its OS installed, by a professional.

any thoughts?

are you independently wealthy?

Still, iLife doesn't justify the cost of the Mac over a PC though. For anyone on a budget or doesnt want to break the bank, PC's are still the better value for it does practically everything a Mac does. This doesn't mean Mac's suck though. It just means its geared towards a different market segment.

Well, it's a local flyer valid for a week, from February 25 to March 3, 2009.

The ad number for the specific computer is 780280/681876/738572...A6734F

I didn't visit the local Staples store as I'm waiting for a Core i7 desktop computer with either Snow Leopard on an iMac or Windows 7 on an HP tower.

It's possible that you could get similar deals through the online Staples store for the US, Britain or Canada. I didn't go much into details as I'm not a buyer for the moment. For instance, the Blu-Ray drive is probably read only and the 500 GB hard disk is small. But it comes with a 19 inches screen and a sales price of $949.

I don't know if Apple will ever get its act together and understand that I am not going to pay an $800 premium so that Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Ron Johnson and Phil Schiller can all get their fat stock option bonuses. I don't care if they have to live with only a $15 million salary, plus full family health coverage. They should work like the rest of us do and earn a decent salary through their work.

I'm not going to pay an $800 premium on my next computer so that these corporate fat cats can enjoy undeserved, extravagant and unrealistic stock option bonuses. Sorry, I'm not that kind of a person.

Don't PCs come bundled with anti-virus software? That's something Apple doesn't provide, so that's one advantage for the PC buyer. Er...

ilife is kiddie software with (IMO) little value.

The dishonesty in the article is ignoring the routine large discounts Dell and HP offer, unlike Apple.
10 second to find

If the coupon's expired, wait a week for the next. It might be 30%.
Another minute, barely trying, to start accumulating additional stackable discounts, like

...etc. If discounts were infrequent, AI's schtick of not even mentioning them would be excusable. But it's Dell&HP's core business model.
Unless they need one immediately, only idiots pay more than 80% of list price for Dell and HP,a fact that has been pointed out numerous times.

Second, this is a ridiculous snapshot -- the first day a commodity tech product is released, it better be at least comparable to its now dated competitors, who have had no chance to leapfrog it in value. Intel reacts to AMD, nVidia to ATI/AMD on prices in a single day.
Given Apple's past standard practice, these iMac prices and parts will be in play for some time. Dell/HP could react on price to the iMac (which they have known, sans the details, was coming for some time) and in a month, perhaps weeks, will have surpassed many iMac commodity hardware CPU RAM HDD specs. Their all-in-ones mobos are old and they have laptop variants to adapt.
But AI will have no reason to follow those moves.

This post does not "criticize Apple" "defend Dell and HP", "make claims about overall value", or OS's, bundled software, usability, "integrated ecosystems", yadda yadda

I've never seen any evidence that HP is using recycled motherboards. In fact, HP uses the same Chinese suppliers as Apple.

As for the power supply, HP uses just the right power supply for their computers. I changed a graphic card, but never needed to change the power supply on my HP desktop. In some scenarios, I guess that you may need a new power supply if you rebuild your computer with power hungry components. But then, you'd be better off with a brand new computer.

I must say that the HP quality seems to be better than Apple, judging by the number of Apple product recalls and warranty extensions. The myth of the Apple quality is just a myth that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You pay more for an Apple computer because Apple's senior management is overpaid through stock options. That's the sad truth.

90% of Apples' recent success is down to Vista and 10% down to Apple.

And remember that *success* is relative Apple will sell approx 12m machines in a market that overall worldwide will comprise approx 260m machines.

perspective...