No way at $1099. Maybe at $899. Priced at $799 with a quad-core i5, non-Mac users would be tempted to take a look, if they even knew about it. Since Apple doesn't really advertise much how will anybody hear about it?
Mavericks and Yosemite are really the only reasons anybody would want to buy an Apple computer over a Windoz box. Apple has failed in a gigantic way to capitalize on the failure of Windoz 8. The old Get A Mac campaign was brilliant. It made people think. With the word spreading about how much Windoz users hated 8 it would have been prudent for Apple to strike. Instead they continued to operate as a phone manufacturer instead of as a computer manufacturer.
It is clear to me that Apple is working towards moving their mobile OS to the desktop. I don't think they will merge iOS and OS X. They will eventually make iOS so useful that it will have everything any desktop user will ever need. It is already close to being there right now. It just needs a file system. With the improvement of ARM processors in a couple of years things like Final Cut Pro will be able to function well on them. This isn't a bad move. It would also facilitate cloud computing where the power of one's device isn't as important.
It's not the most awesome machine but I would buy it over the iMac day in and day out. If Apple is going to make a low spec machine then they had better consider how other low spec machines are priced. For e-mail, web surfing, shopping, video chats, and simple office work there is no need to buy any Apple machine priced so high.
The same can be said for tablets. At first Apple was the leader with the best of everything related to tablets. They could justify their prices. Now there are other manufacturers with better screens. Apple's lead in the operating system area is debatable. Android has lots of apps now that are just as good as anything on iOS. To anybody not tied into the Apple ecosystem the alternatives give more bang for their buck.
No way at $1099. Maybe at $899. Priced at $799 with a quad-core i5...
1) Are you saying it won't sell at that price?
2) If you're going to start listing lower-prices and higher specs without any consideration as to how this would maximize Apple's iMac profits then why not say 99¢ and with the 24-core Xeons?
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.
IPS panels in the 21" size are pretty cheap at this point, and as I recall people noticed the switch to cheaper screens with the G5 era imacs. G4's used IPS displays. G5s went to TN at larger display sizes. I'm going to see what I can find on those cpus, as that it seems unlikely to me that they would use the same ones as the Air. With the old i3 models a few years ago, they used cpus that were a little over $100.
It is true that an i5 dual core 1.4 GHz chip is better than a 1.4 GHz dual core Celeron. Exactly how are people using 1.4 GHz i5 machines? Do video editors choose the 1.4 GHz models? Do audio producers want these all in one dual core machines? If so then Apple is making something worthwhile to such people.
If the people who buy the low end iMac are just using it for e-mail, surfing the web, shopping, making video calls, watching movies, and doing basic office work, then the lower priced iMac is really an expensive machine just to do those tasks.
It is true that an i5 dual core 1.4 GHz chip is better than a 1.4 GHz dual core Celeron.
It's not 1.4GHz, it's somewhere between 1.4-2.7GHz depending on temperature and the desktop has enough cooling to deal with 95W so 15W is easy. It's also 4-thread so it behaves like a quad-core i5 as they tend to have 4-threads too. The quad-i7s have 8-threads. The Celeron 2.6GHz performs around the same:
If the people who buy the low end iMac are just using it for e-mail, surfing the web, shopping, making video calls, watching movies, and doing basic office work, then the lower priced iMac is really an expensive machine just to do those tasks.
Previously the entry model was $200 more so this improves the situation. $1099 isn't all that expensive for basic tasks because it'll typically last a few years. It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years. I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
They maybe get volume discounts because of the Air, which will sell over 1m units per quarter.
It's not 1.4GHz, it's somewhere between 1.4-2.7GHz depending on temperature and the desktop has enough cooling to deal with 95W so 15W is easy. It's also 4-thread so it behaves like a quad-core i5 as they tend to have 4-threads too. The quad-i7s have 8-threads. The Celeron 2.6GHz performs around the same:
That's a $42 chip so might have been cheaper but only has HD graphics.
Previously the entry model was $200 more so this improves the situation. $1099 isn't all that expensive for basic tasks because it'll typically last a few years. It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years. I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
Amusingly when I don't go into bootcamp for a while, I have a difficult time working with it. I have it installed on my notebook. The trackpad drivers aren't that great, and I'm always messing up keys, such as the command key bringing up the start menu.
It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years.
I don't disagree, but I wonder if unsophisticated buyers even KNOW that a Mac is likely to be easier to live with? Is there that kind of value perception among those who are not already part of the Apple faithful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
When I last tried to persuade my Dad to switch he argued that he doesn't want to learn a new operating system. I told him that OS X is easier to use than Windows; he argued that FOR HIM it would actually be HARDER, because he already knows Windows whereas he'd have to learn OS X from the ground up. He doesn't want to bother investing "effort" in making computing "easier."
I don't disagree, but I wonder if unsophisticated buyers even KNOW that a Mac is likely to be easier to live with? Is there that kind of value perception among those who are not already part of the Apple faithful?
When I last tried to persuade my Dad to switch he argued that he doesn't want to learn a new operating system. I told him that OS X is easier to use than Windows; he argued that FOR HIM it would actually be HARDER, because he already knows Windows whereas he'd have to learn OS X from the ground up. He doesn't want to bother investing "effort" in making computing "easier."
I think that's the case and I've even seen people defend Windows as being superior, mostly because their experiences were of older, underpowered Macs like PPC years ago and that perception just stuck.
It's hard to undo that but having more competitive pricing with PCs is a step in the right direction. The lower the price, the target audience grows quite rapidly. Then those people with good experiences share it with others and the marketshare grows.
I still think they need a much less expensive 15" laptop though. For someone who wants a basic laptop, they can get the following for $465:
Apple's entry 15" laptop is $1999 - over 4x the price. They're nowhere near the same spec but for someone who wants a basic computing experience, that doesn't matter. They don't have to get near that price but given that they can make an 11" Air for $899 and 13" for $999, I assume they can make a 15" Air for $1099, same price as the iMac. It might not attract someone with $500 to spend on a laptop but it should at least come into the upper end of their options list.
I suppose ideally Apple would move to 12" and 15" Retina Macbook Airs, the 12" starting at $999, the 15" at $1299 and then ditch the old models. It probably wouldn't be worth keeping the 13" rMBP going. They only have dual-cores anyway. Why not have a 15" Retina Air replace the 13" rMBP line? People who need CPU/GPU power and dual Thunderbolt are going to get the 15" rMBP anyway.
They have 10 laptop configurations now, they only need 6. The SSD upgrades should all be BTO as they are easily switched out.
I don't think they should wait it out either and keep dragging the legacy MBA along, just ditch it and go with the new Retina models. The 15" Air would be a bit heavier than the 13" Air but people who previously had the 13" can get the 12" because it would have a Retina resolution anyway.
As I said about 10 years ago, on this very forum - this is the future of all Apple hardware. The only surprise is how long it has taken Apple to implement this business model.
Extending a products lifespan via upgrades hurts Apple's bottom line - they'd much rather tie you into a consumable model. Apple can then shorten the buying cycle via expedited obsolescence. Even the Mac Pro is heading that way.
And the killer is that if you want to 'upgrade' your spec to a realistic level at the point of purchase, you'll likely have to do it at Apple's online store, rather than being able to shop around to find the best deal (complimentary 3 year warranty at John Lewis, anyone?).
MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and now a member of the iMac family feature soldered-on RAM and fixed storage. Expect Mac mini and the rest of the iMac family to follow in due course.
I think that's the case and I've even seen people defend Windows as being superior, mostly because their experiences were of older, underpowered Macs like PPC years ago and that perception just stuck.
It's hard to undo that but having more competitive pricing with PCs is a step in the right direction. The lower the price, the target audience grows quite rapidly. Then those people with good experiences share it with others and the marketshare grows.
There are some situations where I would still recommend the PC over a Mac. If they're going to boot into Windows anyway, and not through a VM, I would suggest a Windows machine. That includes gaming and Windows only applications that would not run well in a VM (3ds max comes to mind, although it is certified to run in Parallels).
I have been waiting for iMac refresh in 2014. The last update in June 2014 was a low end iMac which was not what I'm looking for. And the last major iMac update was in September 2013 with Haswell CPU. With Intel delaying the introduction of 14nm Broadwell CPU, I don't think Apple will refresh its iMac product line till March 2015. Do you think there is chance of iMac update this coming September 2014 ?
Comments
No way at $1099. Maybe at $899. Priced at $799 with a quad-core i5, non-Mac users would be tempted to take a look, if they even knew about it. Since Apple doesn't really advertise much how will anybody hear about it?
Mavericks and Yosemite are really the only reasons anybody would want to buy an Apple computer over a Windoz box. Apple has failed in a gigantic way to capitalize on the failure of Windoz 8. The old Get A Mac campaign was brilliant. It made people think. With the word spreading about how much Windoz users hated 8 it would have been prudent for Apple to strike. Instead they continued to operate as a phone manufacturer instead of as a computer manufacturer.
It is clear to me that Apple is working towards moving their mobile OS to the desktop. I don't think they will merge iOS and OS X. They will eventually make iOS so useful that it will have everything any desktop user will ever need. It is already close to being there right now. It just needs a file system. With the improvement of ARM processors in a couple of years things like Final Cut Pro will be able to function well on them. This isn't a bad move. It would also facilitate cloud computing where the power of one's device isn't as important.
Nope.
It is clear to me that Apple is working towards moving their mobile OS to the desktop.
NOPE, but there will be multitouch desktops.
It has a file system. You don't have a clue what you're taking about.
"A file system that the user can..."
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Yuck.
I prefer my cloud as a conduit for syncing local content only. Shame iCloud doesn't do that.
LG now sells a Chromebase (all in one) with a 1.4 GHz Haswell Celeron for $349. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-Chromebase-22CV241-W
It's not the most awesome machine but I would buy it over the iMac day in and day out. If Apple is going to make a low spec machine then they had better consider how other low spec machines are priced. For e-mail, web surfing, shopping, video chats, and simple office work there is no need to buy any Apple machine priced so high.
The same can be said for tablets. At first Apple was the leader with the best of everything related to tablets. They could justify their prices. Now there are other manufacturers with better screens. Apple's lead in the operating system area is debatable. Android has lots of apps now that are just as good as anything on iOS. To anybody not tied into the Apple ecosystem the alternatives give more bang for their buck.
This new iMac isn't "a low spec machine" when you're comparing it to a Celeron.
1) Are you saying it won't sell at that price?
2) If you're going to start listing lower-prices and higher specs without any consideration as to how this would maximize Apple's iMac profits then why not say 99¢ and with the 24-core Xeons?
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.
IPS panels in the 21" size are pretty cheap at this point, and as I recall people noticed the switch to cheaper screens with the G5 era imacs. G4's used IPS displays. G5s went to TN at larger display sizes. I'm going to see what I can find on those cpus, as that it seems unlikely to me that they would use the same ones as the Air. With the old i3 models a few years ago, they used cpus that were a little over $100.
It is true that an i5 dual core 1.4 GHz chip is better than a 1.4 GHz dual core Celeron. Exactly how are people using 1.4 GHz i5 machines? Do video editors choose the 1.4 GHz models? Do audio producers want these all in one dual core machines? If so then Apple is making something worthwhile to such people.
If the people who buy the low end iMac are just using it for e-mail, surfing the web, shopping, making video calls, watching movies, and doing basic office work, then the lower priced iMac is really an expensive machine just to do those tasks.
It's the i5-4260U, same as the entry Air and it uses LPDDR3 RAM:
http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/06/imac-performance-june-2014/
They maybe get volume discounts because of the Air, which will sell over 1m units per quarter.
It's not 1.4GHz, it's somewhere between 1.4-2.7GHz depending on temperature and the desktop has enough cooling to deal with 95W so 15W is easy. It's also 4-thread so it behaves like a quad-core i5 as they tend to have 4-threads too. The quad-i7s have 8-threads. The Celeron 2.6GHz performs around the same:
http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz
That's a $42 chip so might have been cheaper but only has HD graphics.
Previously the entry model was $200 more so this improves the situation. $1099 isn't all that expensive for basic tasks because it'll typically last a few years. It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years. I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
It's the i5-4260U, same as the entry Air and it uses LPDDR3 RAM:
http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/06/imac-performance-june-2014/
They maybe get volume discounts because of the Air, which will sell over 1m units per quarter.
It's not 1.4GHz, it's somewhere between 1.4-2.7GHz depending on temperature and the desktop has enough cooling to deal with 95W so 15W is easy. It's also 4-thread so it behaves like a quad-core i5 as they tend to have 4-threads too. The quad-i7s have 8-threads. The Celeron 2.6GHz performs around the same:
http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz
That's a $42 chip so might have been cheaper but only has HD graphics.
Previously the entry model was $200 more so this improves the situation. $1099 isn't all that expensive for basic tasks because it'll typically last a few years. It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years. I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
Amusingly when I don't go into bootcamp for a while, I have a difficult time working with it. I have it installed on my notebook. The trackpad drivers aren't that great, and I'm always messing up keys, such as the command key bringing up the start menu.
It's also a question of how much is it worth to have a pleasant computing experience for years.
I don't disagree, but I wonder if unsophisticated buyers even KNOW that a Mac is likely to be easier to live with? Is there that kind of value perception among those who are not already part of the Apple faithful?
I just couldn't deal with Windows 24/7.
When I last tried to persuade my Dad to switch he argued that he doesn't want to learn a new operating system. I told him that OS X is easier to use than Windows; he argued that FOR HIM it would actually be HARDER, because he already knows Windows whereas he'd have to learn OS X from the ground up. He doesn't want to bother investing "effort" in making computing "easier."
I think that's the case and I've even seen people defend Windows as being superior, mostly because their experiences were of older, underpowered Macs like PPC years ago and that perception just stuck.
It's hard to undo that but having more competitive pricing with PCs is a step in the right direction. The lower the price, the target audience grows quite rapidly. Then those people with good experiences share it with others and the marketshare grows.
I still think they need a much less expensive 15" laptop though. For someone who wants a basic laptop, they can get the following for $465:
http://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-IdeaPad-15-6-Inch-Touchscreen-59387556/dp/B00F5ZAMY4
Apple's entry 15" laptop is $1999 - over 4x the price. They're nowhere near the same spec but for someone who wants a basic computing experience, that doesn't matter. They don't have to get near that price but given that they can make an 11" Air for $899 and 13" for $999, I assume they can make a 15" Air for $1099, same price as the iMac. It might not attract someone with $500 to spend on a laptop but it should at least come into the upper end of their options list.
I suppose ideally Apple would move to 12" and 15" Retina Macbook Airs, the 12" starting at $999, the 15" at $1299 and then ditch the old models. It probably wouldn't be worth keeping the 13" rMBP going. They only have dual-cores anyway. Why not have a 15" Retina Air replace the 13" rMBP line? People who need CPU/GPU power and dual Thunderbolt are going to get the 15" rMBP anyway.
They have 10 laptop configurations now, they only need 6. The SSD upgrades should all be BTO as they are easily switched out.
12" Retina Air, dual-i5, 4GB RAM, 128GB, $999
12" Retina Air, dual-i7, 8GB RAM, 128GB, $1199
15" Retina Air, dual-i5, 4GB RAM, 128GB, $1299
15" Retina Air, dual-i7, 8GB RAM, 128GB, $1599
(maybe a 16GB model here at $1799)
15" Retina Pro, quad-i7 (Iris Pro), 8GB RAM, 256GB, $1999
15" Retina Pro, quad-i7 + NVidia, 16GB RAM, 256GB, $2299
I don't think they should wait it out either and keep dragging the legacy MBA along, just ditch it and go with the new Retina models. The 15" Air would be a bit heavier than the 13" Air but people who previously had the 13" can get the 12" because it would have a Retina resolution anyway.
Extending a products lifespan via upgrades hurts Apple's bottom line - they'd much rather tie you into a consumable model. Apple can then shorten the buying cycle via expedited obsolescence. Even the Mac Pro is heading that way.
And the killer is that if you want to 'upgrade' your spec to a realistic level at the point of purchase, you'll likely have to do it at Apple's online store, rather than being able to shop around to find the best deal (complimentary 3 year warranty at John Lewis, anyone?).
MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and now a member of the iMac family feature soldered-on RAM and fixed storage. Expect Mac mini and the rest of the iMac family to follow in due course.
I think that's the case and I've even seen people defend Windows as being superior, mostly because their experiences were of older, underpowered Macs like PPC years ago and that perception just stuck.
It's hard to undo that but having more competitive pricing with PCs is a step in the right direction. The lower the price, the target audience grows quite rapidly. Then those people with good experiences share it with others and the marketshare grows.
There are some situations where I would still recommend the PC over a Mac. If they're going to boot into Windows anyway, and not through a VM, I would suggest a Windows machine. That includes gaming and Windows only applications that would not run well in a VM (3ds max comes to mind, although it is certified to run in Parallels).