Apple trimming iMac inventory ahead of Haswell models while resellers cut prices
Apple's major channel partners have begun offering material discounts on custom-configured iMacs just as the company appears to have slowed the flow of units coming into the channel in preparation for new Haswell-based models expected by fall.
For instance, B&H on Wednesday evening slashed the price of 15 different custom iMac configurations by as much as $150, several of which had not previously been discounted from Apple's suggested retail price. Many of those same configurations were previously available from other resellers, but have not been restocked alongside other Macs for several weeks, according to historical data from the Apple Price Guide.
The discounts join sales efforts initiated earlier this month by Best Buy, Amazon (Update: out of stock, prices raised via DataVision), and MacMall -- all of which are similarly offering the four standard iMac retail configurations at discounts between $100 and $150. Given the new inventory management measures Apple adopted after January's MacBook Pro surplus scare, the discounts are likely the start of a multi-week effort to run its iMac channel fairly bare.
According to the most trusted reports, Haswell-powered iMacs could be available for launch by late August, but those same reports suggest the possibility that Apple will elect to wait several weeks longer in order to avoid a repeat of last year's misfire, when the company pushed the existing iMac lineup to market too soon, leaving customers waiting for months when demand could not be met.
The blunder drew a rare public admission of hindsight from Chief Executive Tim Cook, who would later state during a conference call that he wished he had waited until 2013 to launch the new iMacs, which were largely unavailable through the entire 2012 holiday shopping season.
The iMac was plagued with production issues when the desktop went on sale in December. It was reported that those issues came from a unique screen lamination process Apple employed in the now current design, allowing the desktop to sport a much thinner profile than its predecessor.
"In retrospect, yes, I sort of wish we had done it after the turn of the year," Cook said. "Customers wouldn't have had to have waited as long as they did."
For instance, B&H on Wednesday evening slashed the price of 15 different custom iMac configurations by as much as $150, several of which had not previously been discounted from Apple's suggested retail price. Many of those same configurations were previously available from other resellers, but have not been restocked alongside other Macs for several weeks, according to historical data from the Apple Price Guide.
The discounts join sales efforts initiated earlier this month by Best Buy, Amazon (Update: out of stock, prices raised via DataVision), and MacMall -- all of which are similarly offering the four standard iMac retail configurations at discounts between $100 and $150. Given the new inventory management measures Apple adopted after January's MacBook Pro surplus scare, the discounts are likely the start of a multi-week effort to run its iMac channel fairly bare.
According to the most trusted reports, Haswell-powered iMacs could be available for launch by late August, but those same reports suggest the possibility that Apple will elect to wait several weeks longer in order to avoid a repeat of last year's misfire, when the company pushed the existing iMac lineup to market too soon, leaving customers waiting for months when demand could not be met.
The blunder drew a rare public admission of hindsight from Chief Executive Tim Cook, who would later state during a conference call that he wished he had waited until 2013 to launch the new iMacs, which were largely unavailable through the entire 2012 holiday shopping season.
The iMac was plagued with production issues when the desktop went on sale in December. It was reported that those issues came from a unique screen lamination process Apple employed in the now current design, allowing the desktop to sport a much thinner profile than its predecessor.
"In retrospect, yes, I sort of wish we had done it after the turn of the year," Cook said. "Customers wouldn't have had to have waited as long as they did."
Comments
Headline is about iMac while picture is a Macbook Pro. Too Snarky? Haswell would be a big boost to Macbook Pro's battery life. Won't be a big help for the iMac.
Hm, not so much interested in Haswell here, but would love Thunderbolt 2 support (and a Retina or 4K top model, hehe).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp
Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?
Depends on the GPU(s) Apple uses
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp
Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?
Yes, sure. And my "hehe" above was intended to admit some wishful thinking here...
Nevertheless, we know that Apple did hire several GPU experts and we know that the new Mac Pro will support (multiple) 4K displays. So, very likely, Apple will release an updated or additional Thunderbolt Display that indeed is 4K to go with it. For almost a decade Apple's top "Pro" laptops and iMacs were always able to drive all of Apple's displays (and even the 11" MBA can drive the current Thunderbolt Display). So, I would assume that this is planned. It might not be now, but maybe in a year though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp
Wouldn't 4k be a lot of pixels to push with the mobile processors that the MacBook pros and iMac use?
iMacs don't use mobile processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arch
iMacs don't use mobile processors.
They do use mobile GPUs though; and that is indeed a relevant point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
Hm, not so much interested in Haswell here, but would love Thunderbolt 2 support (and a Retina or 4K top model, hehe).
4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying.
Less than a foot away from an iMac screen!!!? Time for you to get some glasses so you can sit a little further back. I just measured 19" from my eyes to the screen on my 15" rMBP and I can tell you without question that I can tell the difference between this screen and a non-retina screen. With a larger screen in front of me, it would be even more obvious. Especially at less than 12" from the screen!
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
Wrong.
Oh, and if you're sitting a foot away, you're doing a fair bit of damage to your eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying.
You have your logic backwards. Closer you are to the screen, the better you can tell the quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying.
Well, my normal viewing distance from the 27" screen is more like 2 feet. We do have a Sony PVM-X300 4K in the office for reviewing 4k footage, and I can guarantee you that there is a huge difference between viewing full size footage on it vs. watching the same footage on a 27" Thunderbolt display... The difference is at least as dramatic as it is between an iPad 2 and an iPad 3 or 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
4K support would be a total waste on a computer that generally sits less than a foot from your face. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
They could literally just tell you it was 4K and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were lying.
As someone with 20/10 eyesight[1], I'll call bull shit on this. According to the guys who talk about these sorts of things, I can see dots up to about 450dpi.
So, depending on the dpi on the new 4K display (I doubt if it'd be 450dpi), I *CAN* see a difference.
[1] Not everyone wears glasses or have shitty eyesight, thanks.
Didn't you know the iMac is just a laptop on a stand?
They may have an option to switch a lot of their products over to IGZO:
[VIDEO]
This includes the iOS devices. The power consumption is lower, the bezels can be smaller. This means they can fit slightly larger displays into the same physical size and improve battery life on Macbook Pros and iOS products. The response times are much faster than any display they've used. Dell and Sharp will have 32" models. If Apple went with 32", they could perhaps switch the entry iMac to 24".
The increased resolution also gives the option to scale the display better to lower resolutions.
I have retina 15" Macbook Pro. If next iMac has Retina screen, then I'm buying it, otherwise I'll wait. It's as simple as that.
I would hope they continue to offer the 21.5" or similar sized configuration. Not everyone needs massive desktop screens. I'm hoping that IF Apple update their display they would offer a 21.5" display as well as the 27" model currently offered.
Soon Apple needs to take the price points on iMac lower. This is even more imperative because large "developer" markets like India other wise will just stick to the Mac Mini. Frankly, Mac Mini is more than adequate, but Apple is still missing out.