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.
The correct answer to "priced right" is totally up to the market. You know the expression "vote with your dollars"? That's what that means. In the free market, Apple gets to sell their product at whatever price they think is "right" and the market ultimately answers through sales. Why does my personal opinion about it matter? Why does yours? The market decides what "priced right" means. Apple is betting enough people will buy this, and it's their bet, not yours.
I did not make any statement about whether I think they will be successful. I really do not know.
I did not make any statement about whether I think this product is a "good deal." I was merely answering your earlier question about who it was marketed for.
I don't think you "struggle" with this at all. You're an armchair expert who thinks "Tim the bean counter" is fleecing the consumer. What if this product does well? What will you do then?
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?
its a old model, so its a october 2012 model that is superior than what apple is selling right now at $1100 and $1300 price points. Check the Apple refurbs section on apple websites you will see some on sales that have the 650m.
Seriously Intel HD5000 and Iris GPU are absolute garbage compare to nvidia GPU's, even low ends ones like the 640m. This make Apple 2012 and 2013 imacs far superior to late 2013 and 2014 models. If someone is considering buying an imac, I suggest to get refurb models.
G3D benchmarks: Intel HD 5000 - 604 Intel Iris 5100 - 760 Nvidia 640m - 1021 Intel Iris 5200 pro - 1117 Nvidia 650m - 1297 Nvidia 750m - 1527 Nvidia GTX 775m - 4265 (late 2013 27" imacs) Nvidia GTX 780m - 4327 (late 2013 27" imacs) Nvidia GTX 680mx - 4341 (late 2012 27" imacs) <--- my imac, late 2012 and still the best you can get
Anybody in business. Most desktop computers are overpowered for the tasks they tend to run (Office, CS application, and inventory tracking/management) and this would be ideal. I could probably get something like this approved as a desktop replacement than the more expensive older entry level model because when you add up the numbers I can get more workstations for the same amount of money.
Unless of course you are type A and then nothing is fast enough.
As to office even those apps can get bogged down. Speaking of money, I'm expecting heavy discounts this holiday season, for the most part this machine is over priced. That may be intentional to give them room to run promotions and the like.
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.
Just because an animal swims doesn't make it a fish. This is true. But does that invalidate the statement "The ocean is overrun with fish"?
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.
Like
Just like all of their Mac product line... I don't understand why Apple consumer desktop hardware is so overpriced and under-powered. Their mobile device hardware is price competitive... I never understood this...
Well you do get slightly better construction, but yeah in the end ripoff machines.
I'm struggling to see how Apple couldn't have achieved a $999 price point.
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:
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.
Its a dual core CPU. I suspect that it'll be at 1.4 ghz most of the time as its pretty easy to saturate two cores these days.
That's a good point. I remember when I switched from dual to quad core it was quite a noticeable difference, which I wasn't expecting at the time. Things are more multi-threaded than they were a few years ago.
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:
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.
or they could just take a margin hit and just drop it by $100. Its not like they have rasor thin margins on those.
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.
With those specs and that price point who is this geared towards?
Lots and lots of people. Especially in 3rd world countries.
Very few people need the additional power offered by the more expensive models. Many people simply want an easy to use computer for Grandma and Grandpa. Many businesses want a beautiful iMac in their reception desks instead of clunky PCs. There are many executives and VPs who want a nice looking easy to use machine which they basically use to surf the internet, send emails, and make a few Excel and Powerpoint files.
All these people will greatly appreciate the $200 savings. With cloud storage becoming bigger, the loss of 500GB isn't significant (and unless you are saving movies, 500GB is quite sufficient anyways). Additionally, the 1.3GHz will probably never be used by most of these people.
Which is why Apple left the RAM the same, because RAM is indeed useful even in such settings (Extra RAM means you never really need to close your apps, and can comfortably have many Safari tabs open).
Lots and lots of people. Especially in 3rd world countries.
Very few people need the additional power offered by the more expensive models. Many people simply want an easy to use computer for Grandma and Grandpa. Many businesses want a beautiful iMac in their reception desks instead of clunky PCs. There are many executives and VPs who want a nice looking easy to use machine which they basically use to surf the internet, send emails, and make a few Excel and Powerpoint files.
All these people will greatly appreciate the $200 savings. With cloud storage becoming bigger, the loss of 500GB isn't significant (and unless you are saving movies, 500GB is quite sufficient anyways). Additionally, the 1.3GHz will probably never be used by most of these people.
Which is why Apple left the RAM the same, because RAM is indeed useful even in such settings (Extra RAM means you never really need to close your apps, and can comfortably have many Safari tabs open).
So basically overpriced because it will look nice on someone's desk. Internet, email, Excel and PowerPoint are all available on Windows PCs.
Comments
Apple is getting boring now, they only release stuff at the end of the year.
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?
Found this, http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD093LL/A/refurbished-215-inch-imac-27ghz-quad-core-Intel-Core-i5. Apple used the 640M in iMacs released starting in October 2012 so AI is using an older model that's on sale for comparison.
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.
The correct answer to "priced right" is totally up to the market. You know the expression "vote with your dollars"? That's what that means. In the free market, Apple gets to sell their product at whatever price they think is "right" and the market ultimately answers through sales. Why does my personal opinion about it matter? Why does yours? The market decides what "priced right" means. Apple is betting enough people will buy this, and it's their bet, not yours.
I did not make any statement about whether I think they will be successful. I really do not know.
I did not make any statement about whether I think this product is a "good deal." I was merely answering your earlier question about who it was marketed for.
I don't think you "struggle" with this at all. You're an armchair expert who thinks "Tim the bean counter" is fleecing the consumer. What if this product does well? What will you do then?
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?
its a old model, so its a october 2012 model that is superior than what apple is selling right now at $1100 and $1300 price points. Check the Apple refurbs section on apple websites you will see some on sales that have the 650m.Seriously Intel HD5000 and Iris GPU are absolute garbage compare to nvidia GPU's, even low ends ones like the 640m. This make Apple 2012 and 2013 imacs far superior to late 2013 and 2014 models. If someone is considering buying an imac, I suggest to get refurb models.
G3D benchmarks:
Intel HD 5000 - 604
Intel Iris 5100 - 760
Nvidia 640m - 1021
Intel Iris 5200 pro - 1117
Nvidia 650m - 1297
Nvidia 750m - 1527
Nvidia GTX 775m - 4265 (late 2013 27" imacs)
Nvidia GTX 780m - 4327 (late 2013 27" imacs)
Nvidia GTX 680mx - 4341 (late 2012 27" imacs) <--- my imac, late 2012 and still the best you can get
Schools, students, offices.
At most people.
Unless of course you are type A and then nothing is fast enough.
As to office even those apps can get bogged down. Speaking of money, I'm expecting heavy discounts this holiday season, for the most part this machine is over priced. That may be intentional to give them room to run promotions and the like.
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.
Just because an animal swims doesn't make it a fish. This is true. But does that invalidate the statement "The ocean is overrun with fish"?
Most likely it is a preference for reliability.
Well you do get slightly better construction, but yeah in the end ripoff machines.
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.
Its a dual core CPU. I suspect that it'll be at 1.4 ghz most of the time as its pretty easy to saturate two cores these days.
I have a feeling it will be selling in that price range fairly quickly.
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.
Its a dual core CPU. I suspect that it'll be at 1.4 ghz most of the time as its pretty easy to saturate two cores these days.
That's a good point. I remember when I switched from dual to quad core it was quite a noticeable difference, which I wasn't expecting at the time. Things are more multi-threaded than they were a few years ago.
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.
or they could just take a margin hit and just drop it by $100. Its not like they have rasor thin margins on those.It should be nice and quiet, it's only a 15W CPU. Especially if you upgrade to an SSD.
With those specs and that price point who is this geared towards?
Lots and lots of people. Especially in 3rd world countries.
Very few people need the additional power offered by the more expensive models. Many people simply want an easy to use computer for Grandma and Grandpa. Many businesses want a beautiful iMac in their reception desks instead of clunky PCs. There are many executives and VPs who want a nice looking easy to use machine which they basically use to surf the internet, send emails, and make a few Excel and Powerpoint files.
All these people will greatly appreciate the $200 savings. With cloud storage becoming bigger, the loss of 500GB isn't significant (and unless you are saving movies, 500GB is quite sufficient anyways). Additionally, the 1.3GHz will probably never be used by most of these people.
Which is why Apple left the RAM the same, because RAM is indeed useful even in such settings (Extra RAM means you never really need to close your apps, and can comfortably have many Safari tabs open).