Yet another nonsensical, overdrawn inference from you.
There isn't much point in continuing this.
There isn't. Needless to say, even if it were $899 or $999- you'd just get some other pointless rhetoric about why it isn't good. Whatever fruit hangs the lowest, he'll grab like a pitbull.
Yet another nonsensical, overdrawn inference from you.
There isn't much point in continuing this.
Ah but me saying saying this machine is overpriced means I think it should be some ridiculous low price. And that's not an overdrawn inference. This is a new product Apple is selling. Is it that odd to think they might feature it on their website? These iPhone and iPad commercials aren't brand new.
There isn't. Needless to say, even if it were $899 or $999- you'd just get some other pointless rhetoric about why it isn't good. Whatever fruit hangs the lowest, he'll grab like a pitbull.
Um, no if it was $899 or $999 you'd get no complaints from me. My complaint is about the price, nothing else.
Ah but me saying saying this machine is overpriced means I think it should be some ridiculous low price. And that's not an overdrawn inference. This is a new product Apple is selling. Is it that odd to think they might feature it on their website? These iPhone and iPad commercials aren't brand new.
To be fair, many things aren't advertised or prominently displayed the moment they're available.
Shame that Tim the bean counter shows up every once in a while. This would have been perfect at $899 or $999.
Cause Steve Jobs gave Apple products away, right? Apple products are more reasonably priced today than they ever been in the company's entire history.
Also, the iMac is just a BIT more than specs, which is what you and others seem to be basing the price on. We're talking about the best built computer there is, insanely thin, incredibly good built quality using huge quantities of glass and aluminum.
Also, you're following your regular pattern on this thread of spamming your opinion over and over. Yes, you've stated you believe it should be $100 cheaper (for whatever reason). Now you're going to continue saying the exact same thing using slightly different words. Why do you think your opinion is so important that people need to have it repeated over and over again? Trust me, they read it the 1st time.
With those specs and that price point who is this geared towards?
Someone who owns an iPhone or iPad and likes the Apple feel but only looks at FaceBook, replies to emails and watches a few clips of cats on YouTube, possibly also Skyping friends.
Believe it or not, the majority of computers are only used for this. My old Pentium 233 could accomplish these tasks.
Someone who owns an iPhone or iPad and likes the Apple feel but only looks at FaceBook, replies to emails and watches a few clips of cats on YouTube, possibly also Skyping friends.
Believe it or not, the majority of computers are only used for this. My old Pentium 233 could accomplish these tasks.
Hmm... I do all that on my iPad. Why spend $1099 to duplicate it on a desktop?
That's fine for you, and in most "personal" cases.
...
Stop assuming your needs are what my needs are. $200 isn't a big deal to me, but if I don't need something that fast- I'm literally throwing money away.
Can you show me where I was assuming your needs? Or were you assuming that I was assuming? Does that mean the shoe is on the other foot? It seems you did notice that I tried to carefully word the post.
Also, the CPU in your 2007 iMac was pretty high end for the time. We don't know if a low end CPU from today would carry over just as well over the same amount of time. Equivalently cheaper might have been a 1.5GHz single core, like the Mac mini at the time had.
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...
according to you. meanwhile, in the real world, macs sales are trending better than PC sales, which are dropping. and apple is reaping all the profit in the entire industry because us customers are happy to pay it.
This system can do anything a MBA can do just not at the same speed because it doesn't some standard with and SSD. This config would be great of any high school or college student that wants a nice display but doesn't need higher end performance. This system can system can run anything a student would need for both school and fun.
It's also perfect timing because the new school year is going to start in another month, at least in the US. Didn't look at the education store but I would assume anyone with a .edu will get an additional 50.00 off the base price.
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.
read what you wrote. how could a general purpose computer be "crippled" by a HDD? it may be slower than a SSD, but for common, non-intensive tasks, it's surely not crippled.
If you're not in the market for it, who cares what the price is. In addition, Apple has a lot more experience pricing their products than you do.
Oh and enough of the "Cook is a bean counter" shit. It's foolish.
There have been a few times Apple got pricing wrong. Like the original iPhone, and ATV. There have been some stories about the iPad Air selling better than the retina iPad mini. Could be due to the price increase (I thought maybe the original $329 price was to accommodate a future retina screen). Or maybe now that the Air is so thin and light people opted for it instead. I think the updates Apple made to the MBA were fantastic and I suspect Apple could have a nice Mac quarter because of increased MBA sales.
I don't need to prove anything. I'm not just taking about this particular thread...its anything that has to do with Apple. The amount of fanboys on here is amazing. Apple never does anything wrong no matter what it is.
Its great how nobody responds to something like my mac mini response because they know its true. Its hard for a fan boy to respond to something they know is true because it goes against believing that Apple never does anything people don't agree with.
Overgeneralizing to dodge burden of proof. Got it.
There have been a few times Apple got pricing wrong. Like the original iPhone, and ATV. There have been some stories about the iPad Air selling better than the retina iPad mini. Could be due to the price increase (I thought maybe the original $329 price was to accommodate a future retina screen). Or maybe now that the Air is so thin and light people opted for it instead. I think the updates Apple made to the MBA were fantastic and I suspect Apple could have a nice Mac quarter because of increased MBA sales.
So they got the first ever iPhone pricing wrong. So was Jobs a bean counter then? They've learned.
The iPad is probably a better product than the iPad mini. I don't know. I don't own either of them. Anecdotal evidence, if anything.
The original ATV had a harddruve. The revisions didn't.
Does anyone remember when HP(?) made an "iMac killer" that [I]technically[/I] ha a touchscreen using some IR or laser matrix system in front of the display and came with comical multimedia UI?
Does anyone remember when HP(?) made an "iMac killer" that technically ha a touchscreen using some IR or laser matrix system in front of the display and came with comical multimedia UI?
For that price you can build a 20 times faster top end pc. For half that price you can build a mid range pc that's just as fast and reliable.
Apple prices continue to be criminal. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go have an eyegasm playing FPS games on my PC that totally outclasses any Apple product with my obscenely large 10 bit IPS display that cost almost as much as my PC.
Nonsense. Using that argument, plenty more will buy it you reduced it even further. Why not lower it by another $400? Is it because you think you cannot (or you think people you know cannot) afford it that leads you to that conclusion? So what's that optimal point? You think you know that better than Apple does?
Moreover, don't you think that maintaining profit margins is one heck of an important goal for Apple? As long as they've existed? When have they sold a core hardware product (except for the AppeTV which has been typically relegated to 'hobby' status) to sacrifice margins? Why should they?
What you and the other drive-by whiners are proposing goes against the core of Apple's strategy. It ain't gonna happen. If you don't like it, buy a PC. Or a Chromebook. Or whatever.
Sorry to point out, but product pricing DOES have a psychological component; why price it at $1099? why not $1097.483? It's clear that prices are set to hit certain "thresholds" in the minds of consumers.
Now I am no business mogul but it seems to ME that it would have been nice for Apple to hit the $999 price target; they could advertise "now under $1000" to get to $999 and cross a major "threshold" is a $100 loss, to get to $899 or $799 twice or three times more, yet there is no major "threshold" there to cross to get the added benefit.
I also think that the whole Imac lineup is in need of a little movement. If it were me (again no business mogul)
I would price this unit at $999 I would drop the HDD and use the 128GB SSD from the Air (this would simply be an $899 air on a stand)
- using the SSD from the Air would allow for more economies of scale AND make this "low-end" device even more snappy.
- They should be able to hit the $999 price; they are charging $899 for the Macbook Air, they would save on the battery and charging components, but, of course, they would spend more on the display, but the $999 price gives them probably $100-140 for the cost difference on the display.
I would leave the prices of the other Imacs the same, but make the fusion drive standard.
- Fusion drives can't really cost Apple much to produce, the performance impact would seem like a significant upgrade, and it is an Apple exclusive technology (no other mainstream desktops have it) to further set apple products apart.
Comments
Yet another nonsensical, overdrawn inference from you.
There isn't much point in continuing this.
There isn't. Needless to say, even if it were $899 or $999- you'd just get some other pointless rhetoric about why it isn't good. Whatever fruit hangs the lowest, he'll grab like a pitbull.
To be fair, many things aren't advertised or prominently displayed the moment they're available.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180789/apple-tv-price-drops-by-as-much-as-30-in-the-uk-europe-mac-mini-also-sees-cuts#post_2552099
Shame that Tim the bean counter shows up every once in a while. This would have been perfect at $899 or $999.
Cause Steve Jobs gave Apple products away, right? Apple products are more reasonably priced today than they ever been in the company's entire history.
Also, the iMac is just a BIT more than specs, which is what you and others seem to be basing the price on. We're talking about the best built computer there is, insanely thin, incredibly good built quality using huge quantities of glass and aluminum.
Also, you're following your regular pattern on this thread of spamming your opinion over and over. Yes, you've stated you believe it should be $100 cheaper (for whatever reason). Now you're going to continue saying the exact same thing using slightly different words. Why do you think your opinion is so important that people need to have it repeated over and over again? Trust me, they read it the 1st time.
With those specs and that price point who is this geared towards?
Someone who owns an iPhone or iPad and likes the Apple feel but only looks at FaceBook, replies to emails and watches a few clips of cats on YouTube, possibly also Skyping friends.
Believe it or not, the majority of computers are only used for this. My old Pentium 233 could accomplish these tasks.
Can you show me where I was assuming your needs? Or were you assuming that I was assuming? Does that mean the shoe is on the other foot? It seems you did notice that I tried to carefully word the post.
Also, the CPU in your 2007 iMac was pretty high end for the time. We don't know if a low end CPU from today would carry over just as well over the same amount of time. Equivalently cheaper might have been a 1.5GHz single core, like the Mac mini at the time had.
Oh and enough of the "Cook is a bean counter" shit. It's foolish.
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...
according to you. meanwhile, in the real world, macs sales are trending better than PC sales, which are dropping. and apple is reaping all the profit in the entire industry because us customers are happy to pay it.
i wonder why thats so at odds with your analysis?
This system can do anything a MBA can do just not at the same speed because it doesn't some standard with and SSD. This config would be great of any high school or college student that wants a nice display but doesn't need higher end performance. This system can system can run anything a student would need for both school and fun.
It's also perfect timing because the new school year is going to start in another month, at least in the US. Didn't look at the education store but I would assume anyone with a .edu will get an additional 50.00 off the base price.
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.
read what you wrote. how could a general purpose computer be "crippled" by a HDD? it may be slower than a SSD, but for common, non-intensive tasks, it's surely not crippled.
Overgeneralizing to dodge burden of proof. Got it.
No response = proof. Got it.
Keep up those fallacies coming.
So they got the first ever iPhone pricing wrong. So was Jobs a bean counter then? They've learned.
The iPad is probably a better product than the iPad mini. I don't know. I don't own either of them. Anecdotal evidence, if anything.
The original ATV had a harddruve. The revisions didn't.
I thought I dreamt that.
Apple prices continue to be criminal. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go have an eyegasm playing FPS games on my PC that totally outclasses any Apple product with my obscenely large 10 bit IPS display that cost almost as much as my PC.
Nonsense. Using that argument, plenty more will buy it you reduced it even further. Why not lower it by another $400? Is it because you think you cannot (or you think people you know cannot) afford it that leads you to that conclusion? So what's that optimal point? You think you know that better than Apple does?
Moreover, don't you think that maintaining profit margins is one heck of an important goal for Apple? As long as they've existed? When have they sold a core hardware product (except for the AppeTV which has been typically relegated to 'hobby' status) to sacrifice margins? Why should they?
What you and the other drive-by whiners are proposing goes against the core of Apple's strategy. It ain't gonna happen. If you don't like it, buy a PC. Or a Chromebook. Or whatever.
Sorry to point out, but product pricing DOES have a psychological component; why price it at $1099? why not $1097.483? It's clear that prices are set to hit certain "thresholds" in the minds of consumers.
Now I am no business mogul but it seems to ME that it would have been nice for Apple to hit the $999 price target; they could advertise "now under $1000" to get to $999 and cross a major "threshold" is a $100 loss, to get to $899 or $799 twice or three times more, yet there is no major "threshold" there to cross to get the added benefit.
I also think that the whole Imac lineup is in need of a little movement. If it were me (again no business mogul)
I would price this unit at $999 I would drop the HDD and use the 128GB SSD from the Air (this would simply be an $899 air on a stand)
- using the SSD from the Air would allow for more economies of scale AND make this "low-end" device even more snappy.
- They should be able to hit the $999 price; they are charging $899 for the Macbook Air, they would save on the battery and charging components, but, of course, they would spend more on the display, but the $999 price gives them probably $100-140 for the cost difference on the display.
I would leave the prices of the other Imacs the same, but make the fusion drive standard.
- Fusion drives can't really cost Apple much to produce, the performance impact would seem like a significant upgrade, and it is an Apple exclusive technology (no other mainstream desktops have it) to further set apple products apart.