I think it boils down to price. Personally I've seen little growth in Apple. I used to be wowed by their new product announcements and they used to have the best overall designs, even though they were expensive.
Now, PC manufacturers have caught up in design, especially in the ultrabook category and win on design and features. I like Mac OS and Apple hardware (currently own a 2011 iMac 27") but Apple is just falling behind. I just bought a mid-tier Lenovo U430 Touch and I love using Win 8.1 and the touch screen is actually incredibly useful.
Case in point, the MacBook Air. Why on Earth would anyone buy a 13" MBA when the MBP is 150 more and has much better specs with little sacrifice in battery life? Why does the MBA not have a retina screen yet? Why does Apple continually keep shooting itself in the foot on features and what it packs into the box?
The iMac line, I like. Most of Apple's desktops are pretty bang on. However their notebook lines are suffering from stiff PC competition that offers amazing design, better specs and cheaper prices. Heck my U430 is built as sturdy as a MBP for half the cost.
That analogy would make sense if you were actually getting a Rolls Royce. MBA and MBP have stiff competition from PC ultrabooks that actually have better design, specs and cost. The only Mac that technically performs to its cost is the Mac Pro.
I like OS X, but I've been liking Win 8.1 more, especially using a touch screen laptop.
I would have upgraded to a new mac pro if the kept the old form factor. I'm probably the only one though.
I won't lie, the transition *is* a pain in the ass. Do it anyway.
Once the dust settles and you finally get around to using it for real work, you'll forget all the headaches. Holy HELL the sumbitch is fast! Speed adjustments that took 10-12 seconds to render on our 2009 Mac Pro take less than 2 seconds on the new one. It's a monster.
I won't lie, the transition *is* a pain in the ass. Do it anyway.
Once the dust settles and you finally get around to using it for real work, you'll forget all the headaches. Holy HELL the sumbitch is fast! Speed adjustments that took 10-12 seconds to render on our 2009 Mac Pro take less than 2 seconds on the new one. It's a monster.
Currently the software that I use doesn't benefit from the graphics card. I need cores, powerful cores. The new pros aren't fast enough to justify upgrading. I wish they would have at least made it dual socket. Then two of the fast 8 cores would do some damage.
Apple is a global company. The article uses survey data to put a microscope on one country, and headlines with a decline. However , Mac shipments keep on being profitable at the same level, give or take, for the last umpteen quarters.
This is completely unscientific but I literally knocked over a stack of laptops in our IT department that arrived from Dell. When I asked what was happening one of our IT guys was telling me they are upgrading over 200 laptops to run Windows 8 since they were all still running XP. And that is an ongoing project so I have the feeling that this is a microcosm of what is happening in the Windows world. Companies everywhere have no choice but to buy new hardware and upgrade their Windows machines.
As for Macs, I think the vast majority of Mac users wait much longer to upgrade them or they have moved on to iPads and don't use their laptops as much anymore so don't feel the need to upgrade. I am not quite sure why iPads are not included in the mix of computer sales for Macs. It's just another PC form factor.
The price differences really come down to comparing apples to oranges. Apple is producing complete systems and is responsible for the complete platform including hardware design, development, and support, software design, development, and support, product design, development, and support, and system integration. The only way you could truly compare Apple to say Dell on price would be to take Windows out of the equation and have Dell also be responsible for providing their own operating system and software for their hardware platform. This would include of course all of the system drivers for the required peripherals. In other words, you'd have to take Microsoft out of the picture to equitably compare Apple to Dell on value for the cost.
Of course we'll never know how Dell and Apple would compare based on them competing head to head at all levels because they are in two different ecosystems. In Dell's ecosystem nearly all of the value that Dell can deliver is based on the hardware specs and product design. Every one of their direct competitors is using the same generic dogfood operating system so of course they need to keep their hardware specs as high as possible at every price point and keep their prices as low as possible because they have numerous competitors playing exactly the same game they are playing. This is just the nature of the Windows PC marketplace. If Microsoft decides to take a year or three off in terms of upgrading the OS what are the hardware vendors supposed to do to keep their products shipping? Upgrade the hardware specs of course.
Apple is different. They are playing a totally different game and no matter how many ways you try to force fit them into the Windows PC marketplace you're never going to come up with a comparison that will tie out across the board. Yeah, as consumers we want something better than the same old dogfood operating system and OSX is reliable and compelling. We also want the high build quality of the Macs that most of the Windows PC builders struggle with because they mostly compete based on spec sheets and low price. We want it all and we don't want to pay for it.
The good news for most consumers is that you don't have to pay for it. The PC market is still overwhelmingly dominated by Windows PCs. If you don't want to "pay for it" you're swimming in a vast sea of opportunities to not pay for it. What is there not to love about having a vast universe of choices that almost fit almost every one of your desires for the perfect PC? If you sat down in a restaurant and 90% of the menu was filled with things that you really enjoy at the prices you want to pay, why wouldn't you be totally ecstatic? Why indeed.
Oh, and then there's Apple. They are the 10% part of the menu that is different and based on a completely different model. Yup, their prices are a little higher because they are playing a totally different game. They are going it alone in a PC world dominated by Windows PCs. What's not to like about them giving an alternative path a try? Their total product is compelling. At a paltry 10% marketshare why would we even care about the small price differential when there are so many cheaper alternatives? Why would we be asking them to give up what makes them so unique and different and jump on the 90% train to commodityville?
Apple is Apple. Either you respect what they are trying to accomplish and are willing to pay a small premium to cast your vote of approval, or you get in line with the rest of 90% club. It's your choice and choice is a good thing. But the reason there is a choice here is because there is a real difference. You can't have it both ways. If Apple tried to play the commodity PC game using Windows PC rules, they would not exist, plain and simple. I suppose that's exactly what some people would like, for reasons that I will never understand.
You are right, I as referring to the expandability, graphics and heat constraints. I think Apples laptop lineup is great, I just think their desktop lineup could be expanded. Taking three years to update the MacPro, the only computer without laptop graphics is not really addressing the desktop market.
Expandable!
Quote:
So it seems kinda stupid that you’d suggest Apple make a computer of a type that sells LESS than the ones they already make, doesn’t it.
I hope they don't make a larger iPhone, the one people want, it will be a disaster.
And absolutely nobody in any of those professions worth a grain of salt as an employee is going to base future decisions on that not entirely accurate fallacy. What will determine, in the future, whether businesses upgrade from whatever they're jumping to will be whether existing machines can handle the new operating system, whether existing software can handle the new operating system, and ultimately, whatever costs and benefits are associated with that upgrade.
Entirely true. They would be stupid to base decisions involving millions (or any money, for that matter) based on a statistical rule that has been true in the past. However, Windows 8, like all previous even number releases, is a flunk. It's unlikely this one gets chosen after that rigorous process you describe.
This is completely unscientific but I literally knocked over a stack of laptops in our IT department that arrived from Dell. When I asked what was happening one of our IT guys was telling me they are upgrading over 200 laptops to run Windows 8 since they were all still running XP. And that is an ongoing project so I have the feeling that this is a microcosm of what is happening in the Windows world. Companies everywhere have no choice but to buy new hardware and upgrade their Windows machines.
As for Macs, I think the vast majority of Mac users wait much longer to upgrade them or they have moved on to iPads and don't use their laptops as much anymore so don't feel the need to upgrade. I am not quite sure why iPads are not included in the mix of computer sales for Macs. It's just another PC form factor.
Interesting fact. The timing of XP's end of life might play a role in these "forced updates", but then again, how many big businesses run in-house flavours of Windows anyway? I sure have seen several. As for the iPad, that's my point exactly ^^
2. Most people will never upgrade their iMac once it's on their desk. That's the reality. The 27" iMac can upgrade memory easily. Everything else (including memory on the smaller iMac) can be done by spending the extra 10 minutes opening the front and most likely, never open the unit again. It's a non-issue. I did it on my iMac a year ago. It is totally doable with patience. From start-to-finish, I upgraded the SSD on my 2009 iMac in 30 minutes. Done.
Congratulations, but you completely ignored the original poster's point, which was that since you bought your 2009 iMac 5 years ago, Apple has made the iMac line almost impossible to upgrade. Try swapping in or adding on a SSD on a 2011 or later iMac. I've called every repair shop in town, and nobody will do this procedure, not even Apple themselves. The machines have room for 2 drives, for pete's sake, but you can't access them without removing more screws and components than there are weeks in a year.
You ought to make sure you understand all of the facts before you declare authoritatively what is and isn't an issue for people.
Currently the software that I use doesn't benefit from the graphics card.
Same here. We use it for Pro Tools, which is 100% CPU-centric. It's still WAAY faster than the 2009 it replaced.
We replaced a quad with a quad. Based purely on unscientific, casual observation, I'd say most of the operations we perform regularly are at least twice as fast and in some cases five or six times as fast.
Connecting solid-state storage directly to the PCIe bus doesn't suck either, though admittedly with only 1TB max on board you're still stuck with outboard storage. Our interim solution is a Thunderbolt RAID with hard drives which isn't bad but doesn't come close to the speed of the onboard SSD. We'll see what it's like when our new Avid Isis system is up and running.
Such as the Xserve, which was pretty much essential for schools. A couple of those in a rack was all you needed for the biggest of schools or universities, but now you have Mac Pros rolling around on their sides instead. Amazingly, the early 2009 Xserve is benchmarked faster than the new trashcan Mac Pro in some cases.
You can't even put PCI-e cards in the new Mac Pro, how does one use industry standard fibre RAID arrays?! ...Oh yeah, you have to throw those out and get ThunderBolt ones at twice the price.
I agree too. Especially over here in the UK, the prices of Macs are going up and up. Yes Apple needs to make a profit, but you don't need 40% profit to make a premium product. There's paying for quality, then there's extortion.
And if they really are declining, what is your explanation? Cannibalisation from iPad? Surely that's a bad thing, since the iMacs are $1000+ and the iPads are $399+. If it was all iPad cannibalisation, surely the PC sales would be falling too?
There's really no need to get aggravated and attack someone.
You answered your own question, Lorin isn't buying a new one because of the expense. In 2013 I bought a top of the line 27" iMac which cost over £2400 ($4100). Luckily I didn't have to pay for it, but had I been paying I would never have bought it. It's just way too expensive compared to a same spec PC, which would have been half the price. So in this very small sample size survey, in which you presumably would buy a new Mac at any price point, but Lorin and myself wouldn't, that makes 66% of people in our mini survey failing to buy a Mac because of the price. I know many more who always quote price over anything else as the main reason they won't buy a Mac, especially in the UK where prices are even more than in the US.
Back in the early Intel era, you got much more bang for your buck, and even more so in the late PPC era when the Mac Mini was $499. Now the ageing base model is $599, which in comparison to a PC is pretty poor. Yes PC support costs are much higher, but the initial purchase price for a Mac is too high.
The 2007 iMac was $1199, and had upgradable RAM, a DVD burner, 2ghz CPU. The current cheapest iMac is $1099, with soldered on RAM, sans DVD burner, and with a CPU that's not all that much faster than the 2007 model. For over $1000, that really isn't good value at all.
Dell's 27" AIO is similar to Apple's base 27" model (though lacking a dedicated GPU); but it's $200 cheaper, and you don't have to pay for phone support nor for a DVD drive. Of course non-AIO PCs are even less, with Dell's small PC starting at $249 (granted with a crap CPU) but with the same specs otherwise for which Apple charges $599. Alternatively, Dell's $599 PC has twice the RAM and twice the HDD space that Apple's Mini has.
I really can't understand why the rest of Apple allows Johnny Ive to continue with his OCD on thinness. Eventually we'll have Macs that just have a painted picture on the screen coz there won't be enough space for anything inside
Apple's iPhone battery woes would be solved if the iPhone 5/5s was a few mm thicker, I'm sure many more people would take better battery life over a phone that's 6mm thick instead of 8. I certainly would.
Same with the iMacs (and Mac Pro to a certain extent). Nigh on impossible to take apart, and so thin it compromises on features. Who the hell needs a thin desktop? I hear people every day complaining how they wish their desktop was thinner... /s
They used to, until their price bumps pushed them out of that market.
It uses hugely fewer resources and fuel to put a new HDD/RAM/GPU into the computer rather than throwing the whole thing out and getting a new one every couple of years. My Mac Pro was going strong for 7 years with incremental upgrades until its PSU went pop.
No, the memory on the cheapest smaller iMac isn't upgradable. It's soldered on. Apple prides themselves on design, but they can't design in a door like on the 27" model to access the memory? That's the worst design conceivable. It also takes a whole lot longer than 10 minutes to take apart the latest (late 2012 onwards) iMacs. The screens are glued in. It really isn't a "non-issue".
The later iMacs have a custom firmware on the HDD preventing upgrades, unless you want the fan going at 2000RPM all day.
Considering Apple doesn't even make the Xserve, I not familiar with really any schools using Xserves unless they've previously had it. Most use Mac mini servers (such as mine). There really isn't much you can do in a school that severely taxes a Core i7 processor. Even now, unless you have the last gen Xserve, Server isn't even supported.
Comparing Dells to Apple's offerings is like comparing apples to oranges. No, its not the same. Try again! If you don't like Apple's offerings, then go somewhere's else and buy your cheaper, better Dell. You get what you pay for.
Nobody cares about taking their computer apart. They just want to take it out of the box and use it. Maybe you do, but you can 5 or even 50 other people you can think of isn't the majority of the computing world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
I'm gonna stick to my guns here and continue trying to be civil despite your obviously provocational language, and just ask, have I done something to offend you? Is there some reason you need to insult me to state your position?
Biting my tongue...
In a market that has seen dramatic reductions in prices, "staying the same" is tantamount to "increasing" because the difference in price between a reasonable alternative and a Mac is growing. Mac prices may be staying the same, but the price of alternatives is falling.
You just finished saying you don't consider expert reporting credible, now you're asking me to provide it. Why? So you can say you don't believe it?
The "proof" is self-evident. A fairly decent starter machine can be had from HP for about $500 (CAD). You can't get a Mac for under a grand (again, CAD). If you want a 15" screen the cost of entry doubles.
I'm not saying the $500 HP is equivalent to an 11" Air, because obviously it's not. The point I'm making is that I don't believe MOST people will pay twice as much to get the advantages of the Air. They'll settle for the $500 machine because it's good enough, the same way they buy Hondas instead of Mercedes. And despite all the pontificating to the contrary here, that $500 HP *WILL* be just fine for the vast majority of buyers.
There's a huge segment of the market Apple has chosen to ignore, and I think it's a mistake. You can think whatever you want.
My wife's new machine was $2000 because that's the least expensive 15" machine Apple makes! A comparable HP was half that (same RAM/CPU/drive/screen size, better res). For that same $1000 we could also get an Air, but only with an 11" screen. Unless she decides she's happy with a smaller screen (never gonna happen) our choices are to buy something other than Apple or pay TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS BASE PRICE! At that price we're probably not going to be getting a new machine every time a cool new feature comes along.
Once you get into the top-teir machines like mine the differences are not as great. Mine was about $3500 with all the BTO options (~$4000 with AppleCare and taxes). At that time Asus had a machine with slightly better screen, drive, RAM, ports and CPU for about $500 less. You have to admit, that's a pretty healthy premium for the "Apple experience." Today it's harder to compare because there are so few competitors for a high-end MBP, so I guess Apple can essentially charge whatever they want.
I hope you're right!
…and with that final insult, I've had enough.
Nothing I've said is insulting anyone. I'm sorry that pissing and moaning is considered provocative to you. If I wanted to be insulting I could have said you're a fuc$*&^ idiot for thinking this, but I didn't, did I? Lets not be children here. We're all adults.
No, the article is SPECULATING that Apple sales have slid as shown in the quote from the article below. There's no hard evidence of Apple's sales in the US.
Quote: AppleInsider Article
According to IDC's preliminary results for the most recent June quarter
I'd like to see some kind of proof that people think Macs are expensive. You have yet to provide any evidence supporting this. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
Quote:
The "proof" is self-evident. A fairly decent starter machine can be had from HP for about $500 (CAD). You can't get a Mac for under a grand (again, CAD). If you want a 15" screen the cost of entry doubles.
I'm not saying the $500 HP is equivalent to an 11" Air, because obviously it's not.
So first you say that proof is self-evident, but then after that you say its not equivalent. You just invalidated your own argument haha. Nothing more to say here.
Comments
I think it boils down to price. Personally I've seen little growth in Apple. I used to be wowed by their new product announcements and they used to have the best overall designs, even though they were expensive.
Now, PC manufacturers have caught up in design, especially in the ultrabook category and win on design and features. I like Mac OS and Apple hardware (currently own a 2011 iMac 27") but Apple is just falling behind. I just bought a mid-tier Lenovo U430 Touch and I love using Win 8.1 and the touch screen is actually incredibly useful.
Case in point, the MacBook Air. Why on Earth would anyone buy a 13" MBA when the MBP is 150 more and has much better specs with little sacrifice in battery life? Why does the MBA not have a retina screen yet? Why does Apple continually keep shooting itself in the foot on features and what it packs into the box?
The iMac line, I like. Most of Apple's desktops are pretty bang on. However their notebook lines are suffering from stiff PC competition that offers amazing design, better specs and cheaper prices. Heck my U430 is built as sturdy as a MBP for half the cost.
That analogy would make sense if you were actually getting a Rolls Royce. MBA and MBP have stiff competition from PC ultrabooks that actually have better design, specs and cost. The only Mac that technically performs to its cost is the Mac Pro.
I like OS X, but I've been liking Win 8.1 more, especially using a touch screen laptop.
I would have upgraded to a new mac pro if the kept the old form factor. I'm probably the only one though.
I won't lie, the transition *is* a pain in the ass. Do it anyway.
Once the dust settles and you finally get around to using it for real work, you'll forget all the headaches. Holy HELL the sumbitch is fast! Speed adjustments that took 10-12 seconds to render on our 2009 Mac Pro take less than 2 seconds on the new one. It's a monster.
I won't lie, the transition *is* a pain in the ass. Do it anyway.
Once the dust settles and you finally get around to using it for real work, you'll forget all the headaches. Holy HELL the sumbitch is fast! Speed adjustments that took 10-12 seconds to render on our 2009 Mac Pro take less than 2 seconds on the new one. It's a monster.
Currently the software that I use doesn't benefit from the graphics card. I need cores, powerful cores. The new pros aren't fast enough to justify upgrading. I wish they would have at least made it dual socket. Then two of the fast 8 cores would do some damage.
Those numbers are totally wrong. Apple has been shipping about 4 million macs, quarter after quarter, for years.
Hey people, there is life behind US borders as well :-). 4 milions is for whole world and article is about US shipment. ;-)
Who really gives a dam!
This is completely unscientific but I literally knocked over a stack of laptops in our IT department that arrived from Dell. When I asked what was happening one of our IT guys was telling me they are upgrading over 200 laptops to run Windows 8 since they were all still running XP. And that is an ongoing project so I have the feeling that this is a microcosm of what is happening in the Windows world. Companies everywhere have no choice but to buy new hardware and upgrade their Windows machines.
As for Macs, I think the vast majority of Mac users wait much longer to upgrade them or they have moved on to iPads and don't use their laptops as much anymore so don't feel the need to upgrade. I am not quite sure why iPads are not included in the mix of computer sales for Macs. It's just another PC form factor.
The price differences really come down to comparing apples to oranges. Apple is producing complete systems and is responsible for the complete platform including hardware design, development, and support, software design, development, and support, product design, development, and support, and system integration. The only way you could truly compare Apple to say Dell on price would be to take Windows out of the equation and have Dell also be responsible for providing their own operating system and software for their hardware platform. This would include of course all of the system drivers for the required peripherals. In other words, you'd have to take Microsoft out of the picture to equitably compare Apple to Dell on value for the cost.
Of course we'll never know how Dell and Apple would compare based on them competing head to head at all levels because they are in two different ecosystems. In Dell's ecosystem nearly all of the value that Dell can deliver is based on the hardware specs and product design. Every one of their direct competitors is using the same generic dogfood operating system so of course they need to keep their hardware specs as high as possible at every price point and keep their prices as low as possible because they have numerous competitors playing exactly the same game they are playing. This is just the nature of the Windows PC marketplace. If Microsoft decides to take a year or three off in terms of upgrading the OS what are the hardware vendors supposed to do to keep their products shipping? Upgrade the hardware specs of course.
Apple is different. They are playing a totally different game and no matter how many ways you try to force fit them into the Windows PC marketplace you're never going to come up with a comparison that will tie out across the board. Yeah, as consumers we want something better than the same old dogfood operating system and OSX is reliable and compelling. We also want the high build quality of the Macs that most of the Windows PC builders struggle with because they mostly compete based on spec sheets and low price. We want it all and we don't want to pay for it.
The good news for most consumers is that you don't have to pay for it. The PC market is still overwhelmingly dominated by Windows PCs. If you don't want to "pay for it" you're swimming in a vast sea of opportunities to not pay for it. What is there not to love about having a vast universe of choices that almost fit almost every one of your desires for the perfect PC? If you sat down in a restaurant and 90% of the menu was filled with things that you really enjoy at the prices you want to pay, why wouldn't you be totally ecstatic? Why indeed.
Oh, and then there's Apple. They are the 10% part of the menu that is different and based on a completely different model. Yup, their prices are a little higher because they are playing a totally different game. They are going it alone in a PC world dominated by Windows PCs. What's not to like about them giving an alternative path a try? Their total product is compelling. At a paltry 10% marketshare why would we even care about the small price differential when there are so many cheaper alternatives? Why would we be asking them to give up what makes them so unique and different and jump on the 90% train to commodityville?
Apple is Apple. Either you respect what they are trying to accomplish and are willing to pay a small premium to cast your vote of approval, or you get in line with the rest of 90% club. It's your choice and choice is a good thing. But the reason there is a choice here is because there is a real difference. You can't have it both ways. If Apple tried to play the commodity PC game using Windows PC rules, they would not exist, plain and simple. I suppose that's exactly what some people would like, for reasons that I will never understand.
You think the CPU in the iMac is a laptop CPU?
You are right, I as referring to the expandability, graphics and heat constraints. I think Apples laptop lineup is great, I just think their desktop lineup could be expanded. Taking three years to update the MacPro, the only computer without laptop graphics is not really addressing the desktop market.
Expandable!
Quote:
I hope they don't make a larger iPhone, the one people want, it will be a disaster.
And absolutely nobody in any of those professions worth a grain of salt as an employee is going to base future decisions on that not entirely accurate fallacy. What will determine, in the future, whether businesses upgrade from whatever they're jumping to will be whether existing machines can handle the new operating system, whether existing software can handle the new operating system, and ultimately, whatever costs and benefits are associated with that upgrade.
Entirely true. They would be stupid to base decisions involving millions (or any money, for that matter) based on a statistical rule that has been true in the past. However, Windows 8, like all previous even number releases, is a flunk. It's unlikely this one gets chosen after that rigorous process you describe.
This is completely unscientific but I literally knocked over a stack of laptops in our IT department that arrived from Dell. When I asked what was happening one of our IT guys was telling me they are upgrading over 200 laptops to run Windows 8 since they were all still running XP. And that is an ongoing project so I have the feeling that this is a microcosm of what is happening in the Windows world. Companies everywhere have no choice but to buy new hardware and upgrade their Windows machines.
As for Macs, I think the vast majority of Mac users wait much longer to upgrade them or they have moved on to iPads and don't use their laptops as much anymore so don't feel the need to upgrade. I am not quite sure why iPads are not included in the mix of computer sales for Macs. It's just another PC form factor.
Interesting fact. The timing of XP's end of life might play a role in these "forced updates", but then again, how many big businesses run in-house flavours of Windows anyway? I sure have seen several. As for the iPad, that's my point exactly ^^
LOL. I seem to recall that the predecessor to Windows 7 was called "Windows Vista." Not Windows 6.
So that even / odd theory is too new for any "IT department, advisor, consultant, or in-house semi-geek" to trust yet.
Oh, sure, the internal designation for Windows Vista was Windows 6.0. Yeah, knew that. Even number.
But the internal designation for Windows 7 was "Windows 6.1." Kinda like a bug-fix release would be designated.
Here it is from the horse's mouth:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_programs/is-microsoft-windows-7-the-same-as-windows-61/1fe12fe6-5c10-4926-89d3-249e8cabc06f
So what does that do to the even / odd theory?
Nitpicking much? You have to admit that Windows 7 is a good release, and it's an odd number. Works for my theory.
Besides, it's irrelevant, Linux will soon take over the world
2. Most people will never upgrade their iMac once it's on their desk. That's the reality. The 27" iMac can upgrade memory easily. Everything else (including memory on the smaller iMac) can be done by spending the extra 10 minutes opening the front and most likely, never open the unit again. It's a non-issue. I did it on my iMac a year ago. It is totally doable with patience. From start-to-finish, I upgraded the SSD on my 2009 iMac in 30 minutes. Done.
Congratulations, but you completely ignored the original poster's point, which was that since you bought your 2009 iMac 5 years ago, Apple has made the iMac line almost impossible to upgrade. Try swapping in or adding on a SSD on a 2011 or later iMac. I've called every repair shop in town, and nobody will do this procedure, not even Apple themselves. The machines have room for 2 drives, for pete's sake, but you can't access them without removing more screws and components than there are weeks in a year.
You ought to make sure you understand all of the facts before you declare authoritatively what is and isn't an issue for people.
…since you bought your 2009 iMac 5 years ago, Apple has made the iMac line almost impossible to upgrade.
It’s just as difficult on the modern iMac as on his. What’s your point?
You ought to make sure you understand all of the facts before you declare authoritatively what is and isn't an issue for people.
The irony HURTS.
Currently the software that I use doesn't benefit from the graphics card.
Same here. We use it for Pro Tools, which is 100% CPU-centric. It's still WAAY faster than the 2009 it replaced.
We replaced a quad with a quad. Based purely on unscientific, casual observation, I'd say most of the operations we perform regularly are at least twice as fast and in some cases five or six times as fast.
Connecting solid-state storage directly to the PCIe bus doesn't suck either, though admittedly with only 1TB max on board you're still stuck with outboard storage. Our interim solution is a Thunderbolt RAID with hard drives which isn't bad but doesn't come close to the speed of the onboard SSD. We'll see what it's like when our new Avid Isis system is up and running.
Such as the Xserve, which was pretty much essential for schools. A couple of those in a rack was all you needed for the biggest of schools or universities, but now you have Mac Pros rolling around on their sides instead. Amazingly, the early 2009 Xserve is benchmarked faster than the new trashcan Mac Pro in some cases.
You can't even put PCI-e cards in the new Mac Pro, how does one use industry standard fibre RAID arrays?! ...Oh yeah, you have to throw those out and get ThunderBolt ones at twice the price.
I agree too. Especially over here in the UK, the prices of Macs are going up and up. Yes Apple needs to make a profit, but you don't need 40% profit to make a premium product. There's paying for quality, then there's extortion.
And if they really are declining, what is your explanation? Cannibalisation from iPad? Surely that's a bad thing, since the iMacs are $1000+ and the iPads are $399+. If it was all iPad cannibalisation, surely the PC sales would be falling too?
There's really no need to get aggravated and attack someone.
You answered your own question, Lorin isn't buying a new one because of the expense. In 2013 I bought a top of the line 27" iMac which cost over £2400 ($4100). Luckily I didn't have to pay for it, but had I been paying I would never have bought it. It's just way too expensive compared to a same spec PC, which would have been half the price. So in this very small sample size survey, in which you presumably would buy a new Mac at any price point, but Lorin and myself wouldn't, that makes 66% of people in our mini survey failing to buy a Mac because of the price. I know many more who always quote price over anything else as the main reason they won't buy a Mac, especially in the UK where prices are even more than in the US.
Back in the early Intel era, you got much more bang for your buck, and even more so in the late PPC era when the Mac Mini was $499. Now the ageing base model is $599, which in comparison to a PC is pretty poor. Yes PC support costs are much higher, but the initial purchase price for a Mac is too high.
The 2007 iMac was $1199, and had upgradable RAM, a DVD burner, 2ghz CPU. The current cheapest iMac is $1099, with soldered on RAM, sans DVD burner, and with a CPU that's not all that much faster than the 2007 model. For over $1000, that really isn't good value at all.
Dell's 27" AIO is similar to Apple's base 27" model (though lacking a dedicated GPU); but it's $200 cheaper, and you don't have to pay for phone support nor for a DVD drive. Of course non-AIO PCs are even less, with Dell's small PC starting at $249 (granted with a crap CPU) but with the same specs otherwise for which Apple charges $599. Alternatively, Dell's $599 PC has twice the RAM and twice the HDD space that Apple's Mini has.
I really can't understand why the rest of Apple allows Johnny Ive to continue with his OCD on thinness. Eventually we'll have Macs that just have a painted picture on the screen coz there won't be enough space for anything inside
Apple's iPhone battery woes would be solved if the iPhone 5/5s was a few mm thicker, I'm sure many more people would take better battery life over a phone that's 6mm thick instead of 8. I certainly would.
Same with the iMacs (and Mac Pro to a certain extent). Nigh on impossible to take apart, and so thin it compromises on features. Who the hell needs a thin desktop? I hear people every day complaining how they wish their desktop was thinner... /s
They used to, until their price bumps pushed them out of that market.
It uses hugely fewer resources and fuel to put a new HDD/RAM/GPU into the computer rather than throwing the whole thing out and getting a new one every couple of years. My Mac Pro was going strong for 7 years with incremental upgrades until its PSU went pop.
No, the memory on the cheapest smaller iMac isn't upgradable. It's soldered on. Apple prides themselves on design, but they can't design in a door like on the 27" model to access the memory? That's the worst design conceivable. It also takes a whole lot longer than 10 minutes to take apart the latest (late 2012 onwards) iMacs. The screens are glued in. It really isn't a "non-issue".
The later iMacs have a custom firmware on the HDD preventing upgrades, unless you want the fan going at 2000RPM all day.
Considering Apple doesn't even make the Xserve, I not familiar with really any schools using Xserves unless they've previously had it. Most use Mac mini servers (such as mine). There really isn't much you can do in a school that severely taxes a Core i7 processor. Even now, unless you have the last gen Xserve, Server isn't even supported.
Comparing Dells to Apple's offerings is like comparing apples to oranges. No, its not the same. Try again! If you don't like Apple's offerings, then go somewhere's else and buy your cheaper, better Dell. You get what you pay for.
Nobody cares about taking their computer apart. They just want to take it out of the box and use it. Maybe you do, but you can 5 or even 50 other people you can think of isn't the majority of the computing world.
I'm gonna stick to my guns here and continue trying to be civil despite your obviously provocational language, and just ask, have I done something to offend you? Is there some reason you need to insult me to state your position?
Biting my tongue...
In a market that has seen dramatic reductions in prices, "staying the same" is tantamount to "increasing" because the difference in price between a reasonable alternative and a Mac is growing. Mac prices may be staying the same, but the price of alternatives is falling.
You just finished saying you don't consider expert reporting credible, now you're asking me to provide it. Why? So you can say you don't believe it?
The "proof" is self-evident. A fairly decent starter machine can be had from HP for about $500 (CAD). You can't get a Mac for under a grand (again, CAD). If you want a 15" screen the cost of entry doubles.
I'm not saying the $500 HP is equivalent to an 11" Air, because obviously it's not. The point I'm making is that I don't believe MOST people will pay twice as much to get the advantages of the Air. They'll settle for the $500 machine because it's good enough, the same way they buy Hondas instead of Mercedes. And despite all the pontificating to the contrary here, that $500 HP *WILL* be just fine for the vast majority of buyers.
There's a huge segment of the market Apple has chosen to ignore, and I think it's a mistake. You can think whatever you want.
My wife's new machine was $2000 because that's the least expensive 15" machine Apple makes! A comparable HP was half that (same RAM/CPU/drive/screen size, better res). For that same $1000 we could also get an Air, but only with an 11" screen. Unless she decides she's happy with a smaller screen (never gonna happen) our choices are to buy something other than Apple or pay TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS BASE PRICE! At that price we're probably not going to be getting a new machine every time a cool new feature comes along.
Once you get into the top-teir machines like mine the differences are not as great. Mine was about $3500 with all the BTO options (~$4000 with AppleCare and taxes). At that time Asus had a machine with slightly better screen, drive, RAM, ports and CPU for about $500 less. You have to admit, that's a pretty healthy premium for the "Apple experience." Today it's harder to compare because there are so few competitors for a high-end MBP, so I guess Apple can essentially charge whatever they want.
I hope you're right!
…and with that final insult, I've had enough.
I'd like to see some kind of proof that people think Macs are expensive. You have yet to provide any evidence supporting this. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
The "proof" is self-evident. A fairly decent starter machine can be had from HP for about $500 (CAD). You can't get a Mac for under a grand (again, CAD). If you want a 15" screen the cost of entry doubles.
I'm not saying the $500 HP is equivalent to an 11" Air, because obviously it's not.
So first you say that proof is self-evident, but then after that you say its not equivalent. You just invalidated your own argument haha. Nothing more to say here.