Some people might just want something to control itunes, browse the web and sync their iDevice to. It comes with everything you need for a basic machine. For those things, it's not half bad. It's not good either.
Realize that Apple isn't getting rid of the other configurations, they're just adding a low end version. There typically has been an educational version and this one seems to be it. In a lot of ways, this model is simply a MBA with a 21.5" screen (except for HDD) so for those people who are complaining about a Core2Duo i5, look at the specs for the MBA (1.4GHz, Dual Core i5). If the MBA is adequate for many people then so will this iMac.
I was hoping for a refresh of the entire iMac line before replacing my 2009 iMac so I will either wait and see or dive into a Mac Pro.
I said those specs AND that price point. Specs might be fine for a lot of people but the price seems a bit of a ripoff. I'm struggling to see how Apple couldn't have achieved a $999 price point.
That's because you're spec shopping. BYOPC if specs per dollar matter.
Your "struggling" btw is just more needless handwringing over Apple's product line. That's very kind of you to "struggle" over this. Apple appreciates your "concern."
That's because you're spec shopping. BYOPC if specs per dollar matter.
Your "struggling" btw is just more needless handwringing over Apple's product line. That's very kind of you to "struggle" over this. Apple appreciates your "concern."
Ok you tell me, do you think this is priced right? Because I'm not seeing many people outside of this site who think this is a good deal. I think Apple probably could have hit the $999 price point if they wanted to. But hey for only $200 more you can get a computer with double the performance so maybe this is Apple's way of up selling you.
This update, along with the 8GB 5C and the relaunch of the iPhone 4 in India (which didn't last very long) are head scratchers. They just wreak of Tim the bean counter, not Tim we don't ship junk.
Any particular reason why Apple prefers 5400 rpm hard drives to the nore common 7200 rpm variety? You can't even get 5400 rpm drives on Newegg these days.
I haven't checked the store, perhaps SSD is an option ...
IMHO Apple should be using SSDs now in everything. The performance difference a user would 'feel' on even this low end machine would be astronomical compared to a 5400 rpm HDD, the price of SSD is 50% of what it was a year or so ago now too. A 250 GIG SSD would be better than a 500 GIG HDD especially at this end of the market and with iCloud removing the need for much internal storage (e.g. iTunes Match and new iCloud folder in Yosemite).
The article is not correct when it states that you can purchase from MacMall tax-free in 41 states. They might not collect the sales tax because they don't have a physical presence in those states, but sales tax is still due. Th individual making the purchase is obligated to remit the tax to the state (unless, of course, they are in a state with no sales tax).
Just because someone doesn't agree with what Apple does, doesn't make them a troll. If you want to think that way, I could say well the fanboys have taken over this thread already too with comments like this. It goes both ways dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
Realize that Apple isn't getting rid of the other configurations, they're just adding a low end version. There typically has been an educational version and this one seems to be it. In a lot of ways, this model is simply a MBA with a 21.5" screen (except for HDD) so for those people who are complaining about a Core2Duo i5, look at the specs for the MBA (1.4GHz, Dual Core i5). If the MBA is adequate for many people then so will this iMac.
I was hoping for a refresh of the entire iMac line before replacing my 2009 iMac so I will either wait and see or dive into a Mac Pro.
Basically what Apple did was take yesterday's educational only iMac and make it available for everyone. Still, $1099 is too expensive for what this is. Just because its Apple doesn't mean you can lowball specs and overprice it. I bet most people will just spend the extra $200 and get a real iMac.
Show us your detailed analysis that at least shows the BOM compared with Apple's entry-level profit margin for other Macs makes this higher by $100 or a graph that shows that $999 would maximize iMac profits by increasing sales enough to offset the loss of $100 per unit.
Basically what Apple did was take yesterday's educational only iMac and make it available for everyone. Still, $1099 is too expensive for what this is. Just because its Apple doesn't mean you can lowball specs and overprice it. I bet most people will just spend the extra $200 and get a real iMac.
I think this would be a nice machine as a general purpose computer for non-intensive tasks if it had an SSD instead of the 5400 rpm HDD. It is really crippled by this alone. The rest of the machine is quite good for this price (remember the CPU will scale up to 2.7 GHz) but it needs desperately an SSD. Even a slow one would make a huge difference.
$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.
I think I'd rather fork over the extra money for future life. If one is going to use the computer for six+ years, I don't think it makes sense to be that cheap. One might even squeeze a few more years of useful life out of spending the extra.
Comments
I am at lost the reason behind this product.
Some people might just want something to control itunes, browse the web and sync their iDevice to. It comes with everything you need for a basic machine. For those things, it's not half bad. It's not good either.
Realize that Apple isn't getting rid of the other configurations, they're just adding a low end version. There typically has been an educational version and this one seems to be it. In a lot of ways, this model is simply a MBA with a 21.5" screen (except for HDD) so for those people who are complaining about a Core2Duo i5, look at the specs for the MBA (1.4GHz, Dual Core i5). If the MBA is adequate for many people then so will this iMac.
I was hoping for a refresh of the entire iMac line before replacing my 2009 iMac so I will either wait and see or dive into a Mac Pro.
That's because you're spec shopping. BYOPC if specs per dollar matter.
Your "struggling" btw is just more needless handwringing over Apple's product line. That's very kind of you to "struggle" over this. Apple appreciates your "concern."
I think the 1.4GHz figure might be a bit misleading - look at the Turbo Boost 2.7GHz. That is way more than most Intel CPUs boost by.
This update, along with the 8GB 5C and the relaunch of the iPhone 4 in India (which didn't last very long) are head scratchers. They just wreak of Tim the bean counter, not Tim we don't ship junk.
I haven't checked the store, perhaps SSD is an option ...
IMHO Apple should be using SSDs now in everything. The performance difference a user would 'feel' on even this low end machine would be astronomical compared to a 5400 rpm HDD, the price of SSD is 50% of what it was a year or so ago now too. A 250 GIG SSD would be better than a 500 GIG HDD especially at this end of the market and with iCloud removing the need for much internal storage (e.g. iTunes Match and new iCloud folder in Yosemite).
I wonder how many more of Kuo's predictions will come true? If he is right there's nothing for 2 months now, then an iPad update.
The trolls have overrun this thread already.
Just because someone doesn't agree with what Apple does, doesn't make them a troll. If you want to think that way, I could say well the fanboys have taken over this thread already too with comments like this. It goes both ways dude.
Realize that Apple isn't getting rid of the other configurations, they're just adding a low end version. There typically has been an educational version and this one seems to be it. In a lot of ways, this model is simply a MBA with a 21.5" screen (except for HDD) so for those people who are complaining about a Core2Duo i5, look at the specs for the MBA (1.4GHz, Dual Core i5). If the MBA is adequate for many people then so will this iMac.
I was hoping for a refresh of the entire iMac line before replacing my 2009 iMac so I will either wait and see or dive into a Mac Pro.
Basically what Apple did was take yesterday's educational only iMac and make it available for everyone. Still, $1099 is too expensive for what this is. Just because its Apple doesn't mean you can lowball specs and overprice it. I bet most people will just spend the extra $200 and get a real iMac.
Does MacMall custom install special chips?
Somebody with $1100 in their pocket but not $1300.
Show us your detailed analysis that at least shows the BOM compared with Apple's entry-level profit margin for other Macs makes this higher by $100 or a graph that shows that $999 would maximize iMac profits by increasing sales enough to offset the loss of $100 per unit.
Just curious regarding the $999 iMac offering from MacMall in the story. It has a 640M graphics chip...I don't see this an option on the Apple store.
Does MacMall custom install special chips?
It has quad core, 1TB hard drive, etc. There is a rebate. So, final prices is $999. The specs are much better, I think.
Basically what Apple did was take yesterday's educational only iMac and make it available for everyone. Still, $1099 is too expensive for what this is. Just because its Apple doesn't mean you can lowball specs and overprice it. I bet most people will just spend the extra $200 and get a real iMac.
I think this would be a nice machine as a general purpose computer for non-intensive tasks if it had an SSD instead of the 5400 rpm HDD. It is really crippled by this alone. The rest of the machine is quite good for this price (remember the CPU will scale up to 2.7 GHz) but it needs desperately an SSD. Even a slow one would make a huge difference.
I think I'd rather fork over the extra money for future life. If one is going to use the computer for six+ years, I don't think it makes sense to be that cheap. One might even squeeze a few more years of useful life out of spending the extra.
No, that's not practical.
It's either an older model or an erroneous listing. But if it's last year's model, it might be fine. It pays to scrutinize & research a bit.