[…] A lot of situations have tight budgets and don't need horsepower.
But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?
I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.
Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.
But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?
I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.
Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.
Lorin, I agree with you, and also with what you say about not "happily" forking over Apple prices but begrudgingly paying them. There is a difference.
But I don't think Apple is confused. I think they just see X as who they're aiming at and not Y.
Sadly, historically Apple's lower cost products often prove to still be an expensive decision for those who need convincing the most, yet ironically have no special needs, and under-featured and powered for those who would pony up without hesitation had they only not been missing/lacking/underpowered by their sometimes fairly small amount. Nobody in the low end PC niche knows or cares or cares to know that the RAM or SSD is soldered on and not upgradable, like the battery. Yet Apple users will all argue those points in a $1,300 laptop. Low end Windows users generally buy computers at Costco, literally and figuratively.
We Apple users will begrudgingly pay a premium because we know a lot about the products. Apple has a hard time finding that other large market: like your/our neighbors who want a computer but don't know enough to care and don't want to want more or to care more if it costs that much more. I think with these iMacs they're not reaching down that far and know that. They just still won't get those folks.
I'm still using a 2001 iMac every day. I've connected a 16TB RAID to it via FW400 (the RAID also supports USB 3.0 and eSATA) for my iTunes Server and my Time Machine backups. This works flawlessly from other Macs in the house and the Apple TV. I would like something a bit faster than FW400 and 100Mbps Ethernet to the AEBS which is why I'm holding out for the Mac Mini to be updated, although I may not buy the newest Mac Mini once it's updated but rather use that to get a better price on an older one.
I wonder how many consumer Win PCs from 2001 are still in use.
Really ridiculous move! For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol. The real deal would be to cut the prices of the high-end models
Really ridiculous move! For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol. The real deal would be to cut the prices of the high-end models
Which they recently did with the MBPs. You're welcome.
so why didn't they just do that with the iMacs? :???:
Priced too low at the moment to make it a reasonable move would be my guess. Remember that desktops don't sell as well as notebooks which means there are a huge number of reasons as to how they sold and marketed. If Apple thought they could make more money on all the iMacs sold by dropping the prices across the board they would do it.
Priced too low at the moment to make it a reasonable move would be my guess. Remember that desktops don't sell as well as notebooks which means there are a huge number of reasons as to how they sold and marketed. If Apple thought they could make more money on all the iMacs sold by dropping the prices across the board they would do it.
Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable? I'd tell people to spend $200 more and get a much better machine. Or if they don't need the big screen, just buy a MBA.
But maybe that's the point. Apple just using this model to upsell to a better model. A lot of people said that was the point of the 5C, to upsell you to a 5S.
Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable? I'd tell people to spend $200 more and get a much better machine. Or if they don't need the big screen, just buy a MBA.
But maybe that's the point. Apple just using this model to upsell to a better model. A lot of people said that was the point of the 5C, to upsell you to a 5S.
1) I wouldn't recommend anything other than the most advanced iPhone or iPad but that doesn't mean I think there is no reason for them to exist on the market or that they are crap.
2) A lot of people say a lot of shit but that doesn't make it true, like when people said that iOS 6(?) on iPhone 3GS(?) was to force people to upgrade. Do you really that makes good business sense? Do you not see how simply not offering an update is a better and less costly move? So, no, in no way did they design and build the 5C specifically so people wouldn't buy it.
Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable?
I think that only a small percentage of users would buy this machine for home and private use. This is not a home computer, although you could see some exceptions. It looks to me that it is addressed more to schools, administration and businesses where one buys a closed appliance that just works without caring about internals and upgrade. In such settings the computers are often being bought in significant volume, therefore a difference of $100 or $200 can quickly become quite large in total.
The whole situation gives the impression of an experiment from the part of Apple. It costs them nothing (the machine design was already established) and it always has chances to succeed more than I or we think here. If it does, good for them. If it does not, no one is going to cry; it will not be the Cube all over again.
$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.
Rogi- that 2007 runs circles around our 2013 $500 Dell workstations (no monitor) regarding opening FileMaker, opening mail vs dell opening outlook, and opening numbers vs dell opening excel. Only reason our IT guy buys dell is I have to run sharp desk for printing our reports. Of course, I don't write reports so I have an imac
And the power supply can be replaced cheaply. Mine was replaced on my six-year old iMac this year for about £80.
$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.
Rogi- that 2007 runs circles around our 2013 $500 Dell workstations (no monitor) regarding opening FileMaker, opening mail vs dell opening outlook, and opening numbers vs dell opening excel. Only reason our IT guy buys dell is I have to run sharp desk for printing our reports. Of course, I don't write reports so I have an imac
I have more faith than you that Macs are reliable, at least they used to be. My uncle still has a blueberry iMac from 1999 that fires up and connects to the internets just fine.
I know that blackberries pre-date his blueberry iMac, but does his blueberry iMac pre-date Blackberries? ????
But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?
I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.
Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.
Lorin, I agree with you, and also with what you say about not "happily" forking over Apple prices but begrudgingly paying them. There is a difference.
But I don't think Apple is confused. I think they just see X as who they're aiming at and not Y.
Sadly, historically Apple's lower cost products often prove to still be an expensive decision for those who need convincing the most, yet ironically have no special needs, and under-featured and powered for those who would pony up without hesitation had they only not been missing/lacking/underpowered by their sometimes fairly small amount. Nobody in the low end PC niche knows or cares or cares to know that the RAM or SSD is soldered on and not upgradable, like the battery. Yet Apple users will all argue those points in a $1,300 laptop. Low end Windows users generally buy computers at Costco, literally and figuratively.
We Apple users will begrudgingly pay a premium because we know a lot about the products. Apple has a hard time finding that other large market: like your/our neighbors who want a computer but don't know enough to care and don't want to want more or to care more if it costs that much more. I think with these iMacs they're not reaching down that far and know that. They just still won't get those folks.
Really ridiculous move! For only 200$ less, they sell now a computer with tech specs of previous decade computers! Lol. The real deal would be to cut the prices of the high-end models
I'd like a Mac that went the OTHER way; skimp on the processor. Have 128 - 256 Gigs of hard drive, but a good, dedicated graphics card.
The Mac Mini used to be an option but the Graphics card is more for Server routines now.
This is a step backwards for people wanting to create Kiosks and take advantage of the real-time graphics of Quartz Composer.
I suppose my best shot will be when they take the A7 and package it for a DVR device or some kind of home gaming system that runs iPhone apps. With Metal and Swift -- it's expected that there could be as much as a 10X improvement in "game like" processing.
Kind of crazy that in some regards, an iPhone can beat the pants off of an iMac. Apple is now a cell phone company that offers computers.
Comments
[…] A lot of situations have tight budgets and don't need horsepower.
But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?
I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.
Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.
That's a really old saying. Back in the day the size of your house didn't show wealth, but how many windows you had did.
But are people in those situations likely to buy an $1100 all-in-one over a $500 Acer with a $150 monitor?
I don't know the answer, but on the surface it kinda seems like Apple is a little confused. $1100 is too much to entice a price-sensitive buyer (IMHO) while the result is too little computer to claim price justification on the basis of greatness.
Fortunately a mini can still be had for $600, even if it is a little out-of-date.
Lorin, I agree with you, and also with what you say about not "happily" forking over Apple prices but begrudgingly paying them. There is a difference.
But I don't think Apple is confused. I think they just see X as who they're aiming at and not Y.
Sadly, historically Apple's lower cost products often prove to still be an expensive decision for those who need convincing the most, yet ironically have no special needs, and under-featured and powered for those who would pony up without hesitation had they only not been missing/lacking/underpowered by their sometimes fairly small amount. Nobody in the low end PC niche knows or cares or cares to know that the RAM or SSD is soldered on and not upgradable, like the battery. Yet Apple users will all argue those points in a $1,300 laptop. Low end Windows users generally buy computers at Costco, literally and figuratively.
We Apple users will begrudgingly pay a premium because we know a lot about the products. Apple has a hard time finding that other large market: like your/our neighbors who want a computer but don't know enough to care and don't want to want more or to care more if it costs that much more. I think with these iMacs they're not reaching down that far and know that. They just still won't get those folks.
I'm still using a 2001 iMac every day. I've connected a 16TB RAID to it via FW400 (the RAID also supports USB 3.0 and eSATA) for my iTunes Server and my Time Machine backups. This works flawlessly from other Macs in the house and the Apple TV. I would like something a bit faster than FW400 and 100Mbps Ethernet to the AEBS which is why I'm holding out for the Mac Mini to be updated, although I may not buy the newest Mac Mini once it's updated but rather use that to get a better price on an older one.
I wonder how many consumer Win PCs from 2001 are still in use.
Anecdotes of reliable machines are nice, but are there any statistics available? After all, the ISS is still rocking some old Thinkpads from 2003 (http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/How-are-laptops-used-on-the-International-Space-Station?share=1).
That's a good run for the ISS but that's pretty much as far as you can get from consumer use as possible.
Which they recently did with the MBPs. You're welcome.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1746386
Priced too low at the moment to make it a reasonable move would be my guess. Remember that desktops don't sell as well as notebooks which means there are a huge number of reasons as to how they sold and marketed. If Apple thought they could make more money on all the iMacs sold by dropping the prices across the board they would do it.
But maybe that's the point. Apple just using this model to upsell to a better model. A lot of people said that was the point of the 5C, to upsell you to a 5S.
1) I wouldn't recommend anything other than the most advanced iPhone or iPad but that doesn't mean I think there is no reason for them to exist on the market or that they are crap.
2) A lot of people say a lot of shit but that doesn't make it true, like when people said that iOS 6(?) on iPhone 3GS(?) was to force people to upgrade. Do you really that makes good business sense? Do you not see how simply not offering an update is a better and less costly move? So, no, in no way did they design and build the 5C specifically so people wouldn't buy it.
Oh, we're laughing, but not at the computers.
Would you recommend this iMac model to family or friends, especially with the RAM not being upgradable?
I think that only a small percentage of users would buy this machine for home and private use. This is not a home computer, although you could see some exceptions. It looks to me that it is addressed more to schools, administration and businesses where one buys a closed appliance that just works without caring about internals and upgrade. In such settings the computers are often being bought in significant volume, therefore a difference of $100 or $200 can quickly become quite large in total.
The whole situation gives the impression of an experiment from the part of Apple. It costs them nothing (the machine design was already established) and it always has chances to succeed more than I or we think here. If it does, good for them. If it does not, no one is going to cry; it will not be the Cube all over again.
And the power supply can be replaced cheaply. Mine was replaced on my six-year old iMac this year for about £80.
You can regurgitate the currency exchange argument that was bored to death many decades ago, move to America or shut up.
You chose the former. You chose poorly.
I know that blackberries pre-date his blueberry iMac, but does his blueberry iMac pre-date Blackberries? ????
That's where the ARM Mac will come into play.
They did that, too, in the UK with the iMacs.
The Mac Mini used to be an option but the Graphics card is more for Server routines now.
This is a step backwards for people wanting to create Kiosks and take advantage of the real-time graphics of Quartz Composer.
I suppose my best shot will be when they take the A7 and package it for a DVR device or some kind of home gaming system that runs iPhone apps. With Metal and Swift -- it's expected that there could be as much as a 10X improvement in "game like" processing.
Kind of crazy that in some regards, an iPhone can beat the pants off of an iMac. Apple is now a cell phone company that offers computers.