I have a problem with upsell conspiracy that forces people to forego the 21.5" for the 27". How exactly does this scenario work? "Gee, I was going to buy the 21.5" iMac but since it would cost me $50 to $130 more than what Apple charges for pre-installed RAM upgrades I'm going to instead pay $600 more for the 27" iMac which is far too big for my needs." That sounds like a reasonable scenario to you? If so, then you might be Montgomery Burns.
Bottom line: Most people look at the size that suits their needs and then configure options accordingly.
I explained the upsell scenario twice now. That you refuse to acknowledge that the mid-tier 21" iMacs are poor values in comparison with the rest of the line up is not my problem. I can't help willful ignorance.
If the 27" iMac is actually "too big for your needs' then sure, pay almost as much for less capability since the situation warrants it. For most folks bigger is better. In any case $1799 vs $1299 is $500 not $600 and $1849 (27" iMac + $50 8GB RAM upgrade) vs $1499 is only $350.
You get a lot of future proofing for that $350, especially if you're willing to pay for the Fusion drive as well. An option you do not get on the $1300 iMac.
Quote:
So now people that have a 21.5" iMac are dumbasses? Shame on you!
Troll much? That's not what I wrote and you know it.
Do you deny that the $1700 21" iMac i5 with 16GB RAM vs $1850 27" iMac i5 with 16 GB RAM is a far worse deal? This is the starting baseline for Fusion w/16GB.
Yes, I call them dumbasses to make the point. If you have a space that only fits 21" then that's what you got and you work with it and obviously you're not a dumbass. You're still better off getting the i7 model for another $200 bump or dropping back to the $1300 base model and saving $200 (put that toward a Thunderbolt SSD drive instead). This is crappiest iMac configuration from a value perspective.
Folks that buy a $1300 21" iMac (just go with 8GB and forget future proofing) hit the lowest priced sweet spot in the Mac lineup if you need a GPU.
If you don't need a GPU then the $800 Core i7 mini is the lowest priced sweet spot and a surprisingly good deal.
If GPU performance is the driving factor then the 27" iMac with the $150 GTX 680MX upgrade is the sweet spot. Despite the high cost that iMac represents a good value.
You know I still have no idea why you are arguing with me. To use a car analogy this is no different than car companies forcing you to buy a higher end model (aka UPSELL) in order to get whatever option it was that you really wanted. That you have to pay for the overpriced NAV package for $700 (for which a $500 iPad Mini is better) that you didn't want and upgrade to a higher trim level to get the back up camera that you DID want is part of how they make money.
That's not a conspiracy, that's just business. You don't have to like it but claiming it isn't happening or that it is accidental is stupid.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think the plan designed to push buyers up the line is as sophisticated or calculated as you describe. I actually think SolipsismX nailed it earlier in the discussion with his description of the commodity appliance computer.
Apple figured out a long time ago that buyers have an appetite for skinny, pointy computers, so when Jony says "I could make this thing even skinnier if we got rid of sockets and access panels" they decide, "Sure, go for it."
I, like you, approach the purchase of a computer from a traditional and possibly dying perspective: with the assumption that it can be easily customized. As SolipsismX points out, that's not the case with other consumer electronics devices -- you can't modify or upgrade your Blu-Ray player or TV -- and for better or worse, the computer is becoming just another CE product. For proof, he suggests looking at the success of the iPad.
I don't think the plan is carefully structured upgrade pricing designed to force buyers into higher models. I think he's probably right that it's just part of a gradual migration towards "good enough, better, best" model offerings like most other consumer goods.
Upgrade and option issues aside, speaking only from an aesthetic perspective, is the new model even an improvement? Am I the only one who actually preferred the looks of the previous iMac? I liked the thicker at the edges, less bowed in the back appearance more than the current razor-edged bubble. Is it just me?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I have a problem with upsell conspiracy that forces people to forego the 21.5" for the 27". How exactly does this scenario work? "Gee, I was going to buy the 21.5" iMac but since it would cost me $50 to $130 more than what Apple charges for pre-installed RAM upgrades I'm going to instead pay $600 more for the 27" iMac which is far too big for my needs." That sounds like a reasonable scenario to you? If so, then you might be Montgomery Burns.
Bottom line: Most people look at the size that suits their needs and then configure options accordingly.
I explained the upsell scenario twice now. That you refuse to acknowledge that the mid-tier 21" iMacs are poor values in comparison with the rest of the line up is not my problem. I can't help willful ignorance.
If the 27" iMac is actually "too big for your needs' then sure, pay almost as much for less capability since the situation warrants it. For most folks bigger is better. In any case $1799 vs $1299 is $500 not $600 and $1849 (27" iMac + $50 8GB RAM upgrade) vs $1499 is only $350.
You get a lot of future proofing for that $350, especially if you're willing to pay for the Fusion drive as well. An option you do not get on the $1300 iMac.
Quote:
So now people that have a 21.5" iMac are dumbasses? Shame on you!
Troll much? That's not what I wrote and you know it.
Do you deny that the $1700 21" iMac i5 with 16GB RAM vs $1850 27" iMac i5 with 16 GB RAM is a far worse deal? This is the starting baseline for Fusion w/16GB.
Yes, I call them dumbasses to make the point. If you have a space that only fits 21" then that's what you got and you work with it and obviously you're not a dumbass. You're still better off getting the i7 model for another $200 bump or dropping back to the $1300 base model and saving $200 (put that toward a Thunderbolt SSD drive instead). This is crappiest iMac configuration from a value perspective.
Folks that buy a $1300 21" iMac (just go with 8GB and forget future proofing) hit the lowest priced sweet spot in the Mac lineup if you need a GPU.
If you don't need a GPU then the $800 Core i7 mini is the lowest priced sweet spot and a surprisingly good deal.
If GPU performance is the driving factor then the 27" iMac with the $150 GTX 680MX upgrade is the sweet spot. Despite the high cost that iMac represents a good value.
You know I still have no idea why you are arguing with me. To use a car analogy this is no different than car companies forcing you to buy a higher end model (aka UPSELL) in order to get whatever option it was that you really wanted. That you have to pay for the overpriced NAV package for $700 (for which a $500 iPad Mini is better) that you didn't want and upgrade to a higher trim level to get the back up camera that you DID want is part of how they make money.
That's not a conspiracy, that's just business. You don't have to like it but claiming it isn't happening or that it is accidental is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
That's not a conspiracy, that's just business.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think the plan designed to push buyers up the line is as sophisticated or calculated as you describe. I actually think SolipsismX nailed it earlier in the discussion with his description of the commodity appliance computer.
Apple figured out a long time ago that buyers have an appetite for skinny, pointy computers, so when Jony says "I could make this thing even skinnier if we got rid of sockets and access panels" they decide, "Sure, go for it."
I, like you, approach the purchase of a computer from a traditional and possibly dying perspective: with the assumption that it can be easily customized. As SolipsismX points out, that's not the case with other consumer electronics devices -- you can't modify or upgrade your Blu-Ray player or TV -- and for better or worse, the computer is becoming just another CE product. For proof, he suggests looking at the success of the iPad.
I don't think the plan is carefully structured upgrade pricing designed to force buyers into higher models. I think he's probably right that it's just part of a gradual migration towards "good enough, better, best" model offerings like most other consumer goods.
Upgrade and option issues aside, speaking only from an aesthetic perspective, is the new model even an improvement? Am I the only one who actually preferred the looks of the previous iMac? I liked the thicker at the edges, less bowed in the back appearance more than the current razor-edged bubble. Is it just me?