(Sorry for the possible re-post, my entry was apparently lost after i "added a comment")
This specific model of the iMac, after the low-cost 5th-gen iPod Touch that drops the rear-facing camera, along with some other announcements in the same vein in the last 18 months (IIRC), gives me the feeling that Apple is repeating the same mistakes that it made in 1990 with the so-called "low-cost Macs" (Mac Classic, Mac IIsi & Mac LC).
You do not bring out newer models with cut-down specs (or, worse, with ill-advised designs). You find ways to bring down the costs of existing specs, whilst you find ways to improve the machines you already have. This is not progress, this is just spinning your wheels.
I don't understand why the RAM could not have been socketed, the increase in production costs would have been marginal at best. This was a bad design decision.
I could go on and on, but I fear that Apple is stuck in a rut and their critics will end up being right. The company is apparently well managed (at least, *that* is different from the 1990 Apple), but there is something missing, that could keep the company moving forward.
I really hope they *do* have an exciting pipeline of upcoming products and not just questionable refreshes.
P.S.: Actually, I'm no longer sure about the "currently well-managed" part. Wasn't there some talk about new features for iOS 8 that were stuck in a quagmire, along with problems with the management of iOS 8 development? When you start adding the issues that plagued the first version of in-house maps application to the rumours of dropped upgrades because they could not be finished in time, you get a scary picture of Apple's future.
Absolutely right. In a couple years, what used to require 8GB to run efficiently will only require 4GB to run efficiently. That's the way things are going.
That's the opposite of the way things are going. Everything now is more disk space! More RAM needed! Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Because if you do, THANK BALLMERING HEAVENS THAT PEOPLE ARE BECOMING INTELLIGENT AGAIN. I miss the days when code had to be good and tight simply because the hardware couldn't handle laziness.
How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?
I'll provide at least one anecdotal point of evidence here. On two occasions I've had RAM modules come loose in my Macs. Re-seating them solved the problem. An old trick involved using a pencil-eraser to clean the surface of the contacts. Soldered RAM is less likely to come loose because once it passes QA, it's stable.
Apart from the fact that Apple can replace the RAM if it fails, and that the RAM is more reliable than that used in any other desktop because it’s soldered, and is therefore less likely to fail.
How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?
Non-soldered RAM is more likely to induce kernel panics due to its physical looseness.
Computers are appliances, at least to a vast group of users.
You might think of your Mac as "One Ring to Rule Them All" or "My Precious" but Joe Consumer thinks of computers like vacuum cleaners or juice blenders. That's why most PCs never get upgraded to new operating systems, and most computers never get hardware upgrades (like more RAM).
I generally view my tech gear (cellphone, tablet, computer) as appliances. Connected? Sure. But essentially they are tools.
I saw that Primate Labs has Geekbench 3 results for the new iMac. The results (single/multiple CPU) are 2820/5435 for the Core i5-4260U Haswell CPU. I ran the same test on my early 2009 24" 2.93GHz Core2Duo iMac and my results were only 1641/2971 or close to 50% of this "worthless" (per lots of you) iMac. I spent $2200 in March 2009, then added more RAM (8GB) later on along with a SSD/2TB HDD Fusion combination. I'm still trying to find benchmarks for the GPU but a quick search seems to say the HD5000 runs circles around my NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB in gaming stats even though the GT 130 has more memory and a faster GPU.
Yes, the 27" iMacs run circles around the little iMac but comparing it to an iMac I bought fully loaded 5 years ago shows just how far Apple has come in providing good computers at a low cost. This iMac should do very well in schools and many businesses. All of us are spoiled because we bought the top of the line even though many of us never really use the power.
Relax. Just like Apple is never going to release a budget iPhone or a cheap iPad, the day is never going to come when Apple tries to match the PCs on price points. This hardware isn't bad: there are tons of PCs out there with 4 and even 2 GB of RAM and still running Intel Celeron processors, and some of them cost nearly $500! Seriously, an Acer Aspire with 4 GB of RAM and a Celeron processor with a 500 GB hard drive: $450 at Best Buy right this minute. So a machine with an i5 chip - Intel's second best CPU instead of their WORST - is worth $200 right off the bat. The extra 4GB of RAM is worth $150 more, at least. So already you are at $800 in value, and again the manufacturer here is ACER, not even HP, Toshiba, Lenovo or Dell.
The other $300? Well for that you get OS X Mavericks instead of Windows 7 or 8 (and all the bloatware that comes with it). Think about it: the Acer has a much less powerful processor, half the RAM PLUS the bloatware that you need to be an IT expert to remove AND the need to run antivirus software. And you also get the superior design/look and feel plus the ecosystem. Suppose you have an iPhone, iPad or Apple TV: it will work great with this "low end iMac." Meanwhile that Acer isn't compatible with ANYTHING because NONE of Microsoft's devices are compatible in any meaningful way ... not their phones, their tablets, XBox etc. Why? Because Windows 8 is garbage and OS X isn't. Your only option would be to put iTunes on it so you can enjoy SOME of Apple's ecosystem.
Look, if it does not sell at this price point, maybe they can knock $100 or at most $150 off to move some more. Market share does matter, and if getting it below $1000 makes schools and businesses more likely to buy them, and also makes it easier for someone considering buying a high end Windows machine to get this instead, that is fine. But when you look at some other devices on the market - a Chromebook with a Celeron processor, 4 GB of RAM and a 16 GB SSD costs $400! - and I think that this iMac costs just about what it is worth.
Which explains why a bunch of MacBook Air users are pretty damned happy with their "underpowered" devices. I have last year's model. Runs fine for me.
A lot of AI commenters are completely clueless about what makes the average Apple customer happy. More reason for Apple to completely ignore AppleInsider and similar forums.
In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM.
Personal experience may be quite variable. I have a black Macbook, a late 2007 model with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU. It has 4 GB of RAM on board, the maximum I could buy at that time. I still run a VM with Windows 2000 on it without any problem. Recently I installed also a Linux VM, taking 1 GB of RAM to run. I saw in activity monitor that this amount of RAM goes into wired status, so the system is left with only 3 GB of memory to function. There is definitely a slowdown, especially during the phase of memory "wiring", but after that it still runs relatively well, as long as I don't use many memory-demanding applications simultaneously. Also, the last reboot of the machine was in December 2013.
I am surprised how well this Macbook runs after so many years of faithful service. In fact, this is the first Macintosh that I use without interruption for so long.
These are the people who buy a Mac Pro to use for Facebook and e-mail
Facebook is such a disgusting memory hog, that I would not have it run on anything less than a fully charged high-end iMac or a Mac Pro. My daughter is using it on a MBP with 8 GB of memory and I see frequently swapfiles (in /var/vm) between 6 and 10 GB total! It is mad. This happens of course after loading tons of pictures in pages updating their content dynamically, and it takes some time, but it does happen. At that times the machine becomes fairly unresponsive for anything beyond Safari, which is active in the foreground, and a memory cleaning is needed (quitting Safari and/or logging out and back in again).
While I see many features missing from this iMac that enthusiasts would like, I see this as a great opportunity for Apple to increase its margin on iMacs. 1.4GHz with 2.7GHz boost should be decent for a while for the average consumer. The 500GB HDD should be fine for the average consumer. The non-upgradeable ram is fine for the average consumer.
If this raises margins and the stock goes up, that will be good for the stockholder (I'm one of those).
Every Apple product doesn't have to be everything to everyone. They make their money by not installing unnecessary fluff that most people don't need. So be it.
There are plenty of 21 inch monitors that cost peanuts. Because they're crap? No.
Because it's ancient tech'.
Take any £100 monitor. Bundle it with the Mac Mini and you've got a £600 'iMac' entry Mac system.
It wasn't that long ago, under Steve Jobs, at the height of the 'colour' iMac's popularity that Apple had a low end model for £595. Yep. That.
How Apple's entry model for a desktop went up to £999 and then £1195 is beyond me. And that was after they stripped the DVD player out of it which they had the blooming cheek to charge me £60 quid for. 'Only Apple.'
As for the 'low end' (joking, right?) Apple model with a pathetic 1.4 gig Duo. uHM. Underwhelming at the price point. Let's take £899 and say, a Dell desktop (crap, right?) for £399. Let's give a nod to the Apple tax and draw a mark half way. £625.
That 1.4 Duo is a £599 desktop machine. And they'd still make a profit on it and give some up sell to better specced models.
The next up at £1095 is a joke at that price and is a £799 computer if ever there was one.
What's really crazy is that Apple had a 24 inch iMac for those kind of prices not so long ago. How we're still on a cheap ass 21 inch for £900 to £1095 is a joke.
Apple and their shareholders. Or Greed.
The Macbook Air is cheaper and has SSD, and you could buy a 21inch screen from the above link and still have a better deal than the 'entry' 'cheap' iMac... or just buy a 21incher and stick it with the Mac Mini. The iMac is the only (bar the Mini) machine without an SSD. Why? It costs more than the Air but doesn't have SSD?
Maybe they have an expensive design. Maybe they should have made the cheap versions out of plastic? (But that didn't help the iPhone 5c and it's p*ss taking price either.)
The Air, the iPad are better examples of how Apple can price things more effectively for the specs. Their software is priced at bargain levels. Really competitive.
But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer. *points to the entry Mac Pro. Points to the entry iMac models.
The recent iMac upgrades have been about ass reaming. Not about giving the customer good value.
I should know. I forked for the top of the line about a year ago. Looking back with hindsight. I'd have just bought a Mac Mini and a 24 IPS monitor and waited for the 4k thing to hit mainstream.
Meh, 8GB should be fine for a long time, especially for someone opting for the cheapest iMac. If there was a 4GB model, I would have an issue.
At first I would have likely screamed all kinds of invective at you for saying that, but honestly? I bumped the RAM in my 2013 MBP from 4 to 8GB, and I have yet to see any pressure against the ceiling, so to speak... the CG software I play with is mostly CPU and vidcard intensive during renders, so my bottlenecks reside there (and there ain't much one can do on a laptop about those...)
All that said, I find it kind of sad that Apple's gone this way. I remember when I was able to bump my now long-gone Mac Cube from a 500MHz G4 to a 1.2GHz one, all with a drop-simple replacement chip from Powerlogix. Vidcard? Took a lot more in the way of technical and physical gymnastics, but I went from a Rage 128 Pro to a Radeon 7000-series card (it barely fit, but after a bit of solder-jockeying and cable-making, fit it did.) Same with the RAM.
I suspect I could, if I needed an uber-customizable tinker-friendly machine, go get a Mac Pro desktop and see what I can do with one of those, but on a practical level, I find that I have no use for such a feature these days (and the cost of the Mac Pro is high enough that I damned sure wouldn't want to go flirting with the warranty anyway.)
Hardware evolution has slowed down to a crawl these days; the only reason I bumped the RAM on the laptop was because I did see enough of a performance bump to justify the cost (and it may be heresy, but damn it's cheaper to get decent RAM from Newegg than it is to order the extra RAM at purchase-time from Apple...) The days where newer, more, or overclocked hardware would make a difference is, sadly, long gone.
But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer. *points to the entry Mac Pro. Points to the entry iMac models.
I won't re-open the debate about the price of the Pro, but it must be at least comparable to the HP workstations we use in our Avid suites because the bean-counters approved our request for one.
Further, the new Pro is not just fast. It is holy-crap-sunnofabitch-fucking-WOW fast. I imported an 800MB impulse library into a reverb plug-in in under a second. You really have to try one to appreciate just how ridiculously powerful this thing is.
Comments
(Sorry for the possible re-post, my entry was apparently lost after i "added a comment")
This specific model of the iMac, after the low-cost 5th-gen iPod Touch that drops the rear-facing camera, along with some other announcements in the same vein in the last 18 months (IIRC), gives me the feeling that Apple is repeating the same mistakes that it made in 1990 with the so-called "low-cost Macs" (Mac Classic, Mac IIsi & Mac LC).
You do not bring out newer models with cut-down specs (or, worse, with ill-advised designs). You find ways to bring down the costs of existing specs, whilst you find ways to improve the machines you already have. This is not progress, this is just spinning your wheels.
I don't understand why the RAM could not have been socketed, the increase in production costs would have been marginal at best. This was a bad design decision.
I could go on and on, but I fear that Apple is stuck in a rut and their critics will end up being right. The company is apparently well managed (at least, *that* is different from the 1990 Apple), but there is something missing, that could keep the company moving forward.
I really hope they *do* have an exciting pipeline of upcoming products and not just questionable refreshes.
P.S.: Actually, I'm no longer sure about the "currently well-managed" part. Wasn't there some talk about new features for iOS 8 that were stuck in a quagmire, along with problems with the management of iOS 8 development? When you start adding the issues that plagued the first version of in-house maps application to the rumours of dropped upgrades because they could not be finished in time, you get a scary picture of Apple's future.
That's the opposite of the way things are going. Everything now is more disk space! More RAM needed! Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Because if you do, THANK BALLMERING HEAVENS THAT PEOPLE ARE BECOMING INTELLIGENT AGAIN. I miss the days when code had to be good and tight simply because the hardware couldn't handle laziness.
How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?
I'll provide at least one anecdotal point of evidence here. On two occasions I've had RAM modules come loose in my Macs. Re-seating them solved the problem. An old trick involved using a pencil-eraser to clean the surface of the contacts. Soldered RAM is less likely to come loose because once it passes QA, it's stable.
Are you suggesting that iMacs are appliances? I wonder if Lisa Jackson has a say in these decisions.
Yes... iMacs are computing appliances. That's a great metaphor. What has Lisa Jackson to do with this???
HUH???
Non-soldered RAM is more likely to induce kernel panics due to its physical looseness.
Are you suggesting that iMacs are appliances?
Computers are appliances, at least to a vast group of users.
You might think of your Mac as "One Ring to Rule Them All" or "My Precious" but Joe Consumer thinks of computers like vacuum cleaners or juice blenders. That's why most PCs never get upgraded to new operating systems, and most computers never get hardware upgrades (like more RAM).
I generally view my tech gear (cellphone, tablet, computer) as appliances. Connected? Sure. But essentially they are tools.
I saw that Primate Labs has Geekbench 3 results for the new iMac. The results (single/multiple CPU) are 2820/5435 for the Core i5-4260U Haswell CPU. I ran the same test on my early 2009 24" 2.93GHz Core2Duo iMac and my results were only 1641/2971 or close to 50% of this "worthless" (per lots of you) iMac. I spent $2200 in March 2009, then added more RAM (8GB) later on along with a SSD/2TB HDD Fusion combination. I'm still trying to find benchmarks for the GPU but a quick search seems to say the HD5000 runs circles around my NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB in gaming stats even though the GT 130 has more memory and a faster GPU.
Yes, the 27" iMacs run circles around the little iMac but comparing it to an iMac I bought fully loaded 5 years ago shows just how far Apple has come in providing good computers at a low cost. This iMac should do very well in schools and many businesses. All of us are spoiled because we bought the top of the line even though many of us never really use the power.
The other $300? Well for that you get OS X Mavericks instead of Windows 7 or 8 (and all the bloatware that comes with it). Think about it: the Acer has a much less powerful processor, half the RAM PLUS the bloatware that you need to be an IT expert to remove AND the need to run antivirus software. And you also get the superior design/look and feel plus the ecosystem. Suppose you have an iPhone, iPad or Apple TV: it will work great with this "low end iMac." Meanwhile that Acer isn't compatible with ANYTHING because NONE of Microsoft's devices are compatible in any meaningful way ... not their phones, their tablets, XBox etc. Why? Because Windows 8 is garbage and OS X isn't. Your only option would be to put iTunes on it so you can enjoy SOME of Apple's ecosystem.
Look, if it does not sell at this price point, maybe they can knock $100 or at most $150 off to move some more. Market share does matter, and if getting it below $1000 makes schools and businesses more likely to buy them, and also makes it easier for someone considering buying a high end Windows machine to get this instead, that is fine. But when you look at some other devices on the market - a Chromebook with a Celeron processor, 4 GB of RAM and a 16 GB SSD costs $400! - and I think that this iMac costs just about what it is worth.
Which explains why a bunch of MacBook Air users are pretty damned happy with their "underpowered" devices. I have last year's model. Runs fine for me.
A lot of AI commenters are completely clueless about what makes the average Apple customer happy. More reason for Apple to completely ignore AppleInsider and similar forums.
That's why you have Adblock installed so they don't get any money from you.
Not me. I'm fine with the ads on AI. It is the least I can do for the entertainment that this site offers!
Here in Australia thanks to 'currency fluctuations' the new "low end" iMac is exactly the same price as I paid for my quad-core 18 months ago
In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM.
Personal experience may be quite variable. I have a black Macbook, a late 2007 model with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU. It has 4 GB of RAM on board, the maximum I could buy at that time. I still run a VM with Windows 2000 on it without any problem. Recently I installed also a Linux VM, taking 1 GB of RAM to run. I saw in activity monitor that this amount of RAM goes into wired status, so the system is left with only 3 GB of memory to function. There is definitely a slowdown, especially during the phase of memory "wiring", but after that it still runs relatively well, as long as I don't use many memory-demanding applications simultaneously. Also, the last reboot of the machine was in December 2013.
I am surprised how well this Macbook runs after so many years of faithful service. In fact, this is the first Macintosh that I use without interruption for so long.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
These are the people who buy a Mac Pro to use for Facebook and e-mail
Facebook is such a disgusting memory hog, that I would not have it run on anything less than a fully charged high-end iMac or a Mac Pro. My daughter is using it on a MBP with 8 GB of memory and I see frequently swapfiles (in /var/vm) between 6 and 10 GB total! It is mad. This happens of course after loading tons of pictures in pages updating their content dynamically, and it takes some time, but it does happen. At that times the machine becomes fairly unresponsive for anything beyond Safari, which is active in the foreground, and a memory cleaning is needed (quitting Safari and/or logging out and back in again).
Facebook is a waste period! I would never own a computer for that piece of crap people view as so great.
While I see many features missing from this iMac that enthusiasts would like, I see this as a great opportunity for Apple to increase its margin on iMacs. 1.4GHz with 2.7GHz boost should be decent for a while for the average consumer. The 500GB HDD should be fine for the average consumer. The non-upgradeable ram is fine for the average consumer.
If this raises margins and the stock goes up, that will be good for the stockholder (I'm one of those).
Every Apple product doesn't have to be everything to everyone. They make their money by not installing unnecessary fluff that most people don't need. So be it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=21''+monitor&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=31429478480&hvpos=1s1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5488204054343611983&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_34esr5pc9k_b
There are plenty of 21 inch monitors that cost peanuts. Because they're crap? No.
Because it's ancient tech'.
Take any £100 monitor. Bundle it with the Mac Mini and you've got a £600 'iMac' entry Mac system.
It wasn't that long ago, under Steve Jobs, at the height of the 'colour' iMac's popularity that Apple had a low end model for £595. Yep. That.
How Apple's entry model for a desktop went up to £999 and then £1195 is beyond me. And that was after they stripped the DVD player out of it which they had the blooming cheek to charge me £60 quid for. 'Only Apple.'
As for the 'low end' (joking, right?) Apple model with a pathetic 1.4 gig Duo. uHM. Underwhelming at the price point. Let's take £899 and say, a Dell desktop (crap, right?) for £399. Let's give a nod to the Apple tax and draw a mark half way. £625.
That 1.4 Duo is a £599 desktop machine. And they'd still make a profit on it and give some up sell to better specced models.
The next up at £1095 is a joke at that price and is a £799 computer if ever there was one.
What's really crazy is that Apple had a 24 inch iMac for those kind of prices not so long ago. How we're still on a cheap ass 21 inch for £900 to £1095 is a joke.
Apple and their shareholders. Or Greed.
The Macbook Air is cheaper and has SSD, and you could buy a 21inch screen from the above link and still have a better deal than the 'entry' 'cheap' iMac... or just buy a 21incher and stick it with the Mac Mini. The iMac is the only (bar the Mini) machine without an SSD. Why? It costs more than the Air but doesn't have SSD?
Maybe they have an expensive design. Maybe they should have made the cheap versions out of plastic? (But that didn't help the iPhone 5c and it's p*ss taking price either.)
The Air, the iPad are better examples of how Apple can price things more effectively for the specs. Their software is priced at bargain levels. Really competitive.
But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer. *points to the entry Mac Pro. Points to the entry iMac models.
The recent iMac upgrades have been about ass reaming. Not about giving the customer good value.
I should know. I forked for the top of the line about a year ago. Looking back with hindsight. I'd have just bought a Mac Mini and a 24 IPS monitor and waited for the 4k thing to hit mainstream.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultrasharp-U2412M-inch-Widescreen-Monitor/dp/B005LNDPPS
Meh, 8GB should be fine for a long time, especially for someone opting for the cheapest iMac. If there was a 4GB model, I would have an issue.
At first I would have likely screamed all kinds of invective at you for saying that, but honestly? I bumped the RAM in my 2013 MBP from 4 to 8GB, and I have yet to see any pressure against the ceiling, so to speak... the CG software I play with is mostly CPU and vidcard intensive during renders, so my bottlenecks reside there (and there ain't much one can do on a laptop about those...)
All that said, I find it kind of sad that Apple's gone this way. I remember when I was able to bump my now long-gone Mac Cube from a 500MHz G4 to a 1.2GHz one, all with a drop-simple replacement chip from Powerlogix. Vidcard? Took a lot more in the way of technical and physical gymnastics, but I went from a Rage 128 Pro to a Radeon 7000-series card (it barely fit, but after a bit of solder-jockeying and cable-making, fit it did.) Same with the RAM.
I suspect I could, if I needed an uber-customizable tinker-friendly machine, go get a Mac Pro desktop and see what I can do with one of those, but on a practical level, I find that I have no use for such a feature these days (and the cost of the Mac Pro is high enough that I damned sure wouldn't want to go flirting with the warranty anyway.)
Hardware evolution has slowed down to a crawl these days; the only reason I bumped the RAM on the laptop was because I did see enough of a performance bump to justify the cost (and it may be heresy, but damn it's cheaper to get decent RAM from Newegg than it is to order the extra RAM at purchase-time from Apple...) The days where newer, more, or overclocked hardware would make a difference is, sadly, long gone.
Damned nostalgia anyways.
[...] So a machine with an i5 chip - Intel's second best CPU instead of their WORST - is worth $200 right off the bat.
It's actually an i3. I have no idea how much that affects the price comparison but the difference will be smaller.
[...] The extra 4GB of RAM is worth $150 more, at least.
Too many digits. 4GB of RAM is about $50 at retail these days.
But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer. *points to the entry Mac Pro. Points to the entry iMac models.
I won't re-open the debate about the price of the Pro, but it must be at least comparable to the HP workstations we use in our Avid suites because the bean-counters approved our request for one.
Further, the new Pro is not just fast. It is holy-crap-sunnofabitch-fucking-WOW fast. I imported an 800MB impulse library into a reverb plug-in in under a second. You really have to try one to appreciate just how ridiculously powerful this thing is.