One thing I'd like to see Apple add to the iMac and a new Pro Monitor (if they do one) is bias lighting on the back of the unit that can be varied in brightness (or turned off) to match user preferences.
Ok, I looked up bias lightning, but I'm not sure that's relevant for a desktop computer. Doesn't everyone sit close enough to their 27" monitor that they wouldn't even see the light behind it? Especially with those huge unsightly bezels, right (kidding about huge and unsightly; not kidding that they further mitigate the "need" for bias lighting).
If you use your desktop computer in a dimly lit or darkened space bias lighting can make a big difference. This is quite common in design studios, for CAD users, some gamers, and even software developers, at least before the "open office or bullpen" fad started being foisted upon unfortunate developers by overzealous lean/agile process evangelists and hapless managers. One company I worked for was fascinated with constantly rearranging the allocation of space in the building, i.e., we moved a lot. The first thing software devs would do after moving to a new area that was formally occupied by regular office workers was to bring in the facilities people and pull half or more of the overhead lights from the fixtures. If there was an OSHA standard for minimum lighting, we'd be right at the limit or probably under it because we didn't measure.
Of course bias lighting would make no sense in a bullpen environment where you're sitting or standing (another fad-ism) in the middle of space with nary a wall in sight and with harsh overhead lighting and 85 dB of idle chat-noise. But in a dimly lit space, and with a high contrast display setup, which macOS's new dark mode accentuates, the benefits of bias lighting are very impressive when you're parked in front of a screen for 10-12 hours a day, even with relatively small 24"-32" single and multi-monitor setups. You'd have to be sitting with your nose literally touching the monitor and with dark side shields on for the bias lighting not to be impinging on your eyes when sitting in front of a computer monitor. It's all about giving your eyes a less jarring transition between darkness and the relatively bright lighting being emitted from the monitors. You have to try it to appreciate the benefits. Sure, you can buy bias lighting kits on Amazon, but if Apple is targeting designers like they are with the iMac Pro especially, having the option of turning on bias lighting that's built into the backside of the display and integrated/calibrated with the display's brightness, intensity, and color temperature would be something that no other computer maker that I'm aware of currently provides.
This was a quick fix for Apple. Memory is still way too high. It is like Apple wants you to buy the memory from someone else. Some video and connection stuff where not changed or included because Apple did not want to redesign the iMac yet. It really didn't want this machine to have to long of "legs". Typical for today's Apple and this management team. Costed out what we need and boy this is expensive compared to the PC world. Will wait for the developer's conference.
Also it's a disgrace that Apple still sells it's high priced machines with a hard drive.
A disgrace! By my mother's pearls!
lol. Fusion is more than fine for most people. You complain like you believe Apple would give you the SSD for free, rather than simply up the entry-level price to cover it, thus forcing everyone to upgrade the option that you want. If you want performance, absolutely nothing is barring you from paying extra for that option.
He's referring to Fusion-less HD-only models. By modern standards, they work so slowly that many would wonder if the computer was broken.
No he isn't, because that isn't even an option on these 27" iMacs.
He's complaining that Fusion is the default on this 27" (the article we're reading) instead of upgrading everyone to SSD (which they would build into the price). Tho of course I'm sure what he really wants is the SSD for free.
No actually he was referring to the 21.5" iMac that has a regular HDD. Fusion is a much better option.
Nope, because this is an article about 27” iMacs. There is no HDD option even possible on these 27” iMacs, which is the entirety of the subject matter of this article, the article you are commenting on.
Of course Fusion drives are faster. And that’s why they cost more. Nobody is going to give you better things for free.
Also it's a disgrace that Apple still sells it's high priced machines with a hard drive.
A disgrace! By my mother's pearls!
lol. Fusion is more than fine for most people. You complain like you believe Apple would give you the SSD for free, rather than simply up the entry-level price to cover it, thus forcing everyone to upgrade the option that you want. If you want performance, absolutely nothing is barring you from paying extra for that option.
It is embarrassing that the iMac still uses a hard drive, which is why it doesn’t have a T2 chip, when all other Macs have SSDs. The fusion drive is not a substitute. It is still a spinning hard drive for all your data.
Incorrect. Since the Fusion drive is both a spinning drive and a SSD treated as one logical volume, it is by definition not a spinning drive for all your data.
Regardless, 1-3TBs of SSD adds much cost to the machine, which not everyone needs. Thus, “To each according to their needs...” You need performance, you pay for it. Mom doesn’t, so she doesn’t.
camc said: OK, but, but.... just Acrobat? In a 19 C° environment? Not to mention the fact that I still need to use a machine like that in an open field which of course.... doesn't have Air Conditioning at all..
Yeah, that sounds kind of bad... but we are talking Adobe here. (I know some have to use it, but I avoid even installing Acrobat like the plague.)
frank777 said: Yeah, they could. But I think there's little reason to do them separately. I think the fact you mentioned (that the iMac Pro doesn't have it) coupled with the preference to wait for SSDs to get cheaper, are actually the reasons they held back.
Well, SSDs have gotten much cheaper, though not as cheap as some might like, I guess. You can buy a 1TB SSD for under $100 now (and just image what Apple could get them for in quantity). I think the TouchID thing is just tricky to do for a desktop with a separate keyboard. I'm not sure why they haven't done FaceID yet.
I'm guessing this was kind of a 0.5 revision until the real update comes along... to quiet all the fuss. This doesn't seem like a real update, though I guess it kind of is what some of us have been asking for in terms of just updating CPU/GPU/ports at minimum until new designs are ready. I think I'm just a bit shocked they didn't add the T2.
frank777 said: Everybody agrees with you on the SSD. The RAM, however, is a different story.Keep it at 8GB. I wish there was an option with no RAM at all. Smart people don't pay for RAM upgrades from Apple.
Yeah, 8GB RAM is fine for a base model. Up until I got my new mini, I was using a machine with 4GB RAM and doing all kinds of work with it.
re: rest - my 2018 mini doesn't have TouchID/FaceID, but has SSD and T2. The iMac has SSD. They certainly could have put the T2 in there... the most likely explanation is the Fusion drive, right? Or, just lazy?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Mini doesn't have FaceID/TouchID because it lacks...well...anything to scan your face or thumb.
Heh, yeah. But, my point was that those things aren't necessarily tied together. They could have certainly added the T2 without FaceID or TouchID. The iMac Pro, for example, has the T2, but no TouchID/FaceID.
They cannot add the T2 chip to the iMac because the iMac still ships with traditional hard drives and a fusion drive which also uses a traditional hard drive. The T2 chip requires flash storage only. Until the iMac finally ditches all forms of spinning hard drives, it will never have the T2 chip. The iMac Pro only ships with flash storage, which is why it has a T2 chip.
StrangeDays said: Nope, because this is an article about 27” iMacs. There is no HDD option even possible on these 27” iMacs, which is the entirety of the subject matter of this article, the article you are commenting on.
Fair point (re: this article) I suppose, but I think the rest of us have been talking about the iMac update overall, not just the 27". And, I'd have to go back and listen to the ATP episode, but I'm nearly positive John Siracusa was talking about the iMac updates too, not just the 27" (which seemed to have spurred that comment you reacted to).
StrangeDays said: Incorrect. Since the Fusion drive is both a spinning drive and a SSD treated as one logical volume, it is by definition not a spinning drive for all your data.
Regardless, 1-3TBs of SSD adds much cost to the machine, which not everyone needs. Thus, “To each according to their needs...” You need performance, you pay for it. Mom doesn’t, so she doesn’t.
“Vhat a concept!”
Yeah, but it's only faster for some things. It's kind of an in-between solution (hence often called hybrid).
And... I can recall Apple (in the past) arguing about their component choices based on providing a good user experience. In other words, when people complained they didn't have cheaper version with XYZ component in it, they said due to user experience, they went with the better one. I think the point we're making here is that HDs actually create a fairly poor user experience, compared to what most people are now expecting. In that light, it seems odd to even offer such a model.
Heck, instead of a fusion drive, I'd rather have a standard 256GB SSD with some HD as a second drive. At least the OS and apps and such would all be on the SSD. That would work far better (aside from a bit of know-how to store big stuff on the other drive) than the Fusion Drive.
That said, I suppose options are a good thing. It should just have a big disclaimer on it given Apple's push to make pretty much everything else SSD, even when it inconvenienced users in terms of storage space/cost.
Heh, yeah. But, my point was that those things aren't necessarily tied together. They could have certainly added the T2 without FaceID or TouchID. The iMac Pro, for example, has the T2, but no TouchID/FaceID.
Yeah, they could. But I think there's little reason to do them separately. I think the fact you mentioned (that the iMac Pro doesn't have it) coupled with the preference to wait for SSDs to get cheaper, are actually the reasons they held back.
SSDs and flash storage are already cheaper, but Apple has a ridiculous markup on their flash storage. 2TB flash storage for the MacBook Pro is $749 at OWC. Apple charges $1,100 for it.
disneylandman said: They cannot add the T2 chip to the iMac because the iMac still ships with traditional hard drives and a fusion drive which also uses a traditional hard drive. The T2 chip requires flash storage only. Until the iMac finally ditches all forms of spinning hard drives, it will never have the T2 chip. The iMac Pro only ships with flash storage, which is why it has a T2 chip.
Yeah, and if that is the full reason, then it becomes EXTREMELY silly they decided to keep the HD and Fusion Drive.
disneylandman said: SSDs and flash storage are already cheaper, but Apple has a ridiculous markup on their flash storage. 2TB flash storage for the MacBook Pro is $749 at OWC. Apple charges $1,100 for it.
Well, and that's the really, really expensive stuff. They could have just gone with an ATA based SSD and not even had to do any redesign if they hadn't wanted to. Though, then I guess that cancels out the T2 as well. But the M.2 are pretty cheap as well.
The base model with HD has a 1TB drive. Even I can buy an SSD direct replacement for that (if I could get in the case) for under $100. The 1TB spinning drive wasn't free for Apple, I'm sure. So, we're talking a maximum of like $80 difference in cost, but probably more like $20 or $30.
disneylandman said: They cannot add the T2 chip to the iMac because the iMac still ships with traditional hard drives and a fusion drive which also uses a traditional hard drive. The T2 chip requires flash storage only. Until the iMac finally ditches all forms of spinning hard drives, it will never have the T2 chip. The iMac Pro only ships with flash storage, which is why it has a T2 chip.
Yeah, and if that is the full reason, then it becomes EXTREMELY silly they decided to keep the HD and Fusion Drive.
disneylandman said: SSDs and flash storage are already cheaper, but Apple has a ridiculous markup on their flash storage. 2TB flash storage for the MacBook Pro is $749 at OWC. Apple charges $1,100 for it.
Well, and that's the really, really expensive stuff. They could have just gone with an ATA based SSD and not even had to do any redesign if they hadn't wanted to. Though, then I guess that cancels out the T2 as well. But the M.2 are pretty cheap as well.
The base model with HD has a 1TB drive. Even I can buy an SSD direct replacement for that (if I could get in the case) for under $100. The 1TB spinning drive wasn't free for Apple, I'm sure. So, we're talking a maximum of like $80 difference in cost, but probably more like $20 or $30.
Yes, that is the real reason why the T2 chip is not in the iMac. The T2 chip only has a storage controller for the PCIe flash storage drive. It does not have a storage controller for a traditional hard drive so Apple could not put the T2 chip in the iMac. The iMac is the only Mac left with a standard hard drive and that is just ridiculous. The fusion drive is a standard hard drive because anything beyond the 128GB SSD on the 2TB and 3TB fusion drives, or the pathetic 32GB SSD on the 1TB fusion drive, is stored and accessed from the spinning hard drive.
OWCs Aura Pro X2 has speeds up to 3282MB/s read and 2488MB/s write for the MacBook Pro and the 2TB flash storage drive is $749. Here is where Apple really rips people off. The current MacBook Pro 15" model offers the 2TB flash storage option for $1,200 in the 2.2GHz model and the very same flash storage option in the 2.6GHz model is $1,000! If you want 2TB of flash storage in the iMac Pro, it is only $600. A Mac Mini with 2TB of flash storage...that will cost you $1,200 or $1,400 depending on the model. If you want 1.5TB in your MacBook Air, that will run you $900 or $1,100 depending on which model you choose. The flash storage options should be the same price regardless of what model or computer you buy. Apple is not using any special chips or really expensive stuff. Samsung manufactures the flash storage modules for Apple. So the 2TB module ranges from $600 to $1,400 depending on which Mac you buy, and that is totally unfair. Spending over $2K for an iMac 27" 5K should not be crippled with a fusion drive. Once you use a computer with even a standard 2.5" SSD on a SATA-III bus, it is painfully slow to use a computer that has a traditional spinning drive, even a fusion drive in which the majority of your data is on the spinning drive. The 21.5" iMac with the painfully slow 5,400 RPM drive is un-usable it is so slow. I would never recommend the 21.5" iMac unless it has all flash storage. And ridiculous that you cannot get 2TB of flash storage in the 21.5" model, but you can get 2TB in a mini.
Here is where Apple really rips people off. The current MacBook Pro 15" model offers the 2TB flash storage option for $1,200 in the 2.2GHz model and the very same flash storage option in the 2.6GHz model is $1,000! [...] The flash storage options should be the same price regardless of what model or computer you buy.
/eyeroll
You're ignoring the fact that the 2.2GHz model base model has 256GB and the 2.6GHz starts with 512GB. Therefore you're paying for 1.75GB and 1.5GB more storage and their corresponding prices, respectively.
Agreed on the port situation. Apple should have found the "courage" to go all USB3/Thunderbolt.
If a future rev can go all USB-C, add SSD standard and a T2 chip, it would be pretty much perfection.
I couldn't disagree more. Keep some legacy ports. Add more USB-C, Thunderbolt 3, others as they mature. More ports of all types is good. I wish there were USB-C and USB-A 3.0 on the front. Instead, my iMac and Mini look like bowls of spaghetti with hubs, dongles and extensions sticking out all over just so I can have the number and types of ports I want and use. But at least the iMac and Mini looks smooth, sleek and unblemished in half shadow on the store website.
MDChops said: I couldn't disagree more. Keep some legacy ports. Add more USB-C, Thunderbolt 3, others as they mature. More ports of all types is good. I wish there were USB-C and USB-A 3.0 on the front. Instead, my iMac and Mini look like bowls of spaghetti with hubs, dongles and extensions sticking out all over just so I can have the number and types of ports I want and use. But at least the iMac and Mini looks smooth, sleek and unblemished in half shadow on the store website.
Yeah, that's a great point. Cables, are, well... cables. We'll probably all have a certain amount of them, and deal with them the best we can. But, once you start having extra adapters, docks, etc. it gets even more kludgy.
And, at some point, it certainly ruins that whole 'architectural office' thing everyone says the point of the iMac is over just having a mini and monitor.
In fact, I'd say my mini and monitor (and eGPU) setup is probably cleaner than an iMac with hubs and dongles. My monitor has power and an HDMI cable (tiny Monoprice 'active' one too). My mini and eGPU sit in a corner/back of the desk and just have a couple cable bundles up to them. An iMac with proper port connectivity (if only USB-C), relative to that, would be kind of a mess.
And, when I used to run my laptop as desktop, nearly my whole desk was taken up by that mess. The advantage there, is you can at least put the mess to the back and connect the laptop with one cable (now, with TB3), so that is an advantage. But, not so much on the iMac.
MDChops said: I couldn't disagree more. Keep some legacy ports. Add more USB-C, Thunderbolt 3, others as they mature. More ports of all types is good. I wish there were USB-C and USB-A 3.0 on the front. Instead, my iMac and Mini look like bowls of spaghetti with hubs, dongles and extensions sticking out all over just so I can have the number and types of ports I want and use. But at least the iMac and Mini looks smooth, sleek and unblemished in half shadow on the store website.
Yeah, that's a great point. Cables, are, well... cables. We'll probably all have a certain amount of them, and deal with them the best we can. But, once you start having extra adapters, docks, etc. it gets even more kludgy.
And, at some point, it certainly ruins that whole 'architectural office' thing everyone says the point of the iMac is over just having a mini and monitor.
In fact, I'd say my mini and monitor (and eGPU) setup is probably cleaner than an iMac with hubs and dongles. My monitor has power and an HDMI cable (tiny Monoprice 'active' one too). My mini and eGPU sit in a corner/back of the desk and just have a couple cable bundles up to them. An iMac with proper port connectivity (if only USB-C), relative to that, would be kind of a mess.
And, when I used to run my laptop as desktop, nearly my whole desk was taken up by that mess. The advantage there, is you can at least put the mess to the back and connect the laptop with one cable (now, with TB3), so that is an advantage. But, not so much on the iMac.
I don’t mind if it’s a portable machine since no plug stays forever. One can always argue “more is better”, but with good management I believe that’s a good trade-off.
The question is: will this iMac overheat in a non-conditioned office running Adobe software? The mid-2015 MacBook Pro I'm currently on starts making noisy games with its fans as soon as Acrobat opens. In summer days it overheats on a regular basis, becoming slower and slower... I'm stuck with a couple of these machines because I can't figure out if a brand new iMac or a brand new MacBook Pro will do the same – any of you guys has suggestions? Should I go for an iMac Pro instead? (throwing away Adobe suite is not an option)
When I first got my i7 mini (2018), I was a bit disappointed by how easily it got noisy. So, I started experimenting. I finally settled on just turning off turbo boost most of the time, and have found the machine much more pleasant... and not all that much slower (at least for what I do). Here is the app I use to turn it off: https://www.rugarciap.com/turbo-boost-switcher-for-os-x/
Eric_WVGG said: He's referring to Fusion-less HD-only models. By modern standards, they work so slowly that many would wonder if the computer was broken.
Yeah, while a standard HD isn't unworkable, it pretty much impacts (negatively) every aspect of the user experience except storage space. I suppose if you have to have the absolutely lowest price and most storage, then it is what it is. But, I'd buy the base SSD (or even wish they had an ATA SSD based model) and plug in some external HD storage WAY before I'd ever consider a standard HD one. At least then, you narrow down poor UI/UX to just Spotlight and file dialog boxes (as it has to spin-up the HD for some crazy reason).
Agreed on the port situation. Apple should have found the "courage" to go all USB3/Thunderbolt. If a future rev can go all USB-C, add SSD standard and a T2 chip, it would be pretty much perfection.
The iMac Pro really got this right. 4 C's and 4 A's, freakin awesome.
Yeah, I'm really happy my (2018) mini has the 4 Cs and 2 As. It is really nice just to be able to plug stuff in without mucking about with dongles. I'm not against C, but until there is more C stuff around, it's handy to have some As since there is plenty of space.
tht said: I’ll raise my hands and say I prefer bezels. Don’t understand how some people don’t have their eyes wigged out from trying to focus on the screen versus the background at the edge of the screen, especially in high contrast backgrounds. My work monitor is not along a wow, and when I had my monitor by the window, yowsers the brightness outside sometimes.
There needs to be some bezel, and while it may look cool and all if it was 3 or 4 mm thick, it makes it little harder to use for me. Heck, On the iPhone, I definitely prefer the sharper edges of the 4 to 5S models over the rounded edges of recent vintage. Maybe 10 to 15 mm bezels would work for me.
Good point, and mostly the same here. Although, even w/ bezel, I can't stand sitting by a window when it's sunny outside or that kind of thing (need some kind of blinds). The bezel certainly helps, though. And, I find the tiny/no bezel stuff on phones/tablets to be a major pain. If you put them in a case, then doing the gestures is hard to impossible.
sflocal said: What other machine - Mac or Wintel - with decent to big CPU's will run in a non-AC room without the fans eventually kicking in?
True, though how much they run, how loudly, and how performance/longevity is impacted greatly varies. While the climate I'm at doesn't generally run too hot, my machine was making noise with even a slight load until I turned turbo boost off. At the same time, my eGPU is silent, even under 100% load. I understand the cylinder Mac Pro is silent too under load.
I think the issue here, is that Apple could have redesigned it (as they've already done the work on the iMac Pro) to be silent or much more quiet with these lower-power internals (compared to the iMac Pro).... or, that in general, Apple seems to be favoring tiny to something that runs reasonably quiet/cool.
8th-gen cores runs a lot hotter as well. I remember seeing reviews where their 8700K hit the temperature wall and throttle. There are multiple reasons for it, but you certainly have to use a bigger cooler. You can’t be consistent with Intel’s roadmaps today, and I’m sure the same thing happened for the MacBook Pro.
DuhSesame said: 8th-gen cores runs a lot hotter as well. I remember seeing reviews where their 8700K hit the temperature wall and throttle. There are multiple reasons for it, but you certainly have to use a bigger cooler. You can’t be consistent with Intel’s roadmaps today, and I’m sure the same thing happened for the MacBook Pro.
I can sort of excuse it with the 2018 mini, as they didn't redesign the thing completely. I wish they'd have made it bigger with more cooling, but it's OK, and by turning the TurboBoost off (which seems to be a relatively small performance hit anyway... though probably due to cooling inability more than a failure of TurboBoost), it runs quiet enough that I'm OK with it.
With the MBP, it was a complete redesign, so making the machine so small to then have inadequate cooling is more a design flaw, IMO.
DuhSesame said: 8th-gen cores runs a lot hotter as well. I remember seeing reviews where their 8700K hit the temperature wall and throttle. There are multiple reasons for it, but you certainly have to use a bigger cooler. You can’t be consistent with Intel’s roadmaps today, and I’m sure the same thing happened for the MacBook Pro.
I can sort of excuse it with the 2018 mini, as they didn't redesign the thing completely. I wish they'd have made it bigger with more cooling, but it's OK, and by turning the TurboBoost off (which seems to be a relatively small performance hit anyway... though probably due to cooling inability more than a failure of TurboBoost), it runs quiet enough that I'm OK with it.
With the MBP, it was a complete redesign, so making the machine so small to then have inadequate cooling is more a design flaw, IMO.
We should have 10nm processors if Intel can keep its promise, which would bring down the consumption, so it’s more an Intel issue. None of the competitors did better job too.
Good thing is they’re done with Intel, so it will run cool again.
DuhSesame said: We should have 10nm processors if Intel can keep its promise, which would bring down the consumption, so it’s more an Intel issue. None of the competitors did better job too.
Good thing is they’re done with Intel, so it will run cool again.
True, though Apple still needs to design based off of reality, not Intel's broken promises.
DuhSesame said: We should have 10nm processors if Intel can keep its promise, which would bring down the consumption, so it’s more an Intel issue. None of the competitors did better job too.
Good thing is they’re done with Intel, so it will run cool again.
True, though Apple still needs to design based off of reality, not Intel's broken promises.
I doubt they knew what Intel's doing when they designed the thing.
DuhSesame said: I doubt they knew what Intel's doing when they designed the thing.
Intel has been behind on their roadmap for a long time now. If Apple is really that out of the loop and still designing to something Intel is unlikely to deliver, they have bigger problems than Intel.
My read on the situation is that Apple has a design/package they want to deliver to the user base, and they are willing to cut whatever corners are necessary to do so. For example, Intel had little do with the MPB keyboard.
Comments
Of course Fusion drives are faster. And that’s why they cost more. Nobody is going to give you better things for free.
Incorrect. Since the Fusion drive is both a spinning drive and a SSD treated as one logical volume, it is by definition not a spinning drive for all your data.
Regardless, 1-3TBs of SSD adds much cost to the machine, which not everyone needs. Thus, “To each according to their needs...” You need performance, you pay for it. Mom doesn’t, so she doesn’t.
“Vhat a concept!”
frank777 said:
Yeah, they could. But I think there's little reason to do them separately. I think the fact you mentioned (that the iMac Pro doesn't have it) coupled with the preference to wait for SSDs to get cheaper, are actually the reasons they held back. Well, SSDs have gotten much cheaper, though not as cheap as some might like, I guess. You can buy a 1TB SSD for under $100 now (and just image what Apple could get them for in quantity). I think the TouchID thing is just tricky to do for a desktop with a separate keyboard. I'm not sure why they haven't done FaceID yet.
I'm guessing this was kind of a 0.5 revision until the real update comes along... to quiet all the fuss. This doesn't seem like a real update, though I guess it kind of is what some of us have been asking for in terms of just updating CPU/GPU/ports at minimum until new designs are ready. I think I'm just a bit shocked they didn't add the T2.
frank777 said:
Everybody agrees with you on the SSD. The RAM, however, is a different story.Keep it at 8GB. I wish there was an option with no RAM at all. Smart people don't pay for RAM upgrades from Apple. Yeah, 8GB RAM is fine for a base model. Up until I got my new mini, I was using a machine with 4GB RAM and doing all kinds of work with it.
Yeah, but it's only faster for some things. It's kind of an in-between solution (hence often called hybrid).
And... I can recall Apple (in the past) arguing about their component choices based on providing a good user experience. In other words, when people complained they didn't have cheaper version with XYZ component in it, they said due to user experience, they went with the better one. I think the point we're making here is that HDs actually create a fairly poor user experience, compared to what most people are now expecting. In that light, it seems odd to even offer such a model.
Heck, instead of a fusion drive, I'd rather have a standard 256GB SSD with some HD as a second drive. At least the OS and apps and such would all be on the SSD. That would work far better (aside from a bit of know-how to store big stuff on the other drive) than the Fusion Drive.
That said, I suppose options are a good thing. It should just have a big disclaimer on it given Apple's push to make pretty much everything else SSD, even when it inconvenienced users in terms of storage space/cost.
SSDs and flash storage are already cheaper, but Apple has a ridiculous markup on their flash storage. 2TB flash storage for the MacBook Pro is $749 at OWC. Apple charges $1,100 for it.
Well, and that's the really, really expensive stuff. They could have just gone with an ATA based SSD and not even had to do any redesign if they hadn't wanted to. Though, then I guess that cancels out the T2 as well. But the M.2 are pretty cheap as well.
The base model with HD has a 1TB drive. Even I can buy an SSD direct replacement for that (if I could get in the case) for under $100. The 1TB spinning drive wasn't free for Apple, I'm sure. So, we're talking a maximum of like $80 difference in cost, but probably more like $20 or $30.
OWCs Aura Pro X2 has speeds up to 3282MB/s read and 2488MB/s write for the MacBook Pro and the 2TB flash storage drive is $749. Here is where Apple really rips people off. The current MacBook Pro 15" model offers the 2TB flash storage option for $1,200 in the 2.2GHz model and the very same flash storage option in the 2.6GHz model is $1,000! If you want 2TB of flash storage in the iMac Pro, it is only $600. A Mac Mini with 2TB of flash storage...that will cost you $1,200 or $1,400 depending on the model. If you want 1.5TB in your MacBook Air, that will run you $900 or $1,100 depending on which model you choose. The flash storage options should be the same price regardless of what model or computer you buy. Apple is not using any special chips or really expensive stuff. Samsung manufactures the flash storage modules for Apple. So the 2TB module ranges from $600 to $1,400 depending on which Mac you buy, and that is totally unfair. Spending over $2K for an iMac 27" 5K should not be crippled with a fusion drive. Once you use a computer with even a standard 2.5" SSD on a SATA-III bus, it is painfully slow to use a computer that has a traditional spinning drive, even a fusion drive in which the majority of your data is on the spinning drive. The 21.5" iMac with the painfully slow 5,400 RPM drive is un-usable it is so slow. I would never recommend the 21.5" iMac unless it has all flash storage. And ridiculous that you cannot get 2TB of flash storage in the 21.5" model, but you can get 2TB in a mini.
You're ignoring the fact that the 2.2GHz model base model has 256GB and the 2.6GHz starts with 512GB. Therefore you're paying for 1.75GB and 1.5GB more storage and their corresponding prices, respectively.
And, at some point, it certainly ruins that whole 'architectural office' thing everyone says the point of the iMac is over just having a mini and monitor.
In fact, I'd say my mini and monitor (and eGPU) setup is probably cleaner than an iMac with hubs and dongles. My monitor has power and an HDMI cable (tiny Monoprice 'active' one too). My mini and eGPU sit in a corner/back of the desk and just have a couple cable bundles up to them. An iMac with proper port connectivity (if only USB-C), relative to that, would be kind of a mess.
And, when I used to run my laptop as desktop, nearly my whole desk was taken up by that mess. The advantage there, is you can at least put the mess to the back and connect the laptop with one cable (now, with TB3), so that is an advantage. But, not so much on the iMac.
With the MBP, it was a complete redesign, so making the machine so small to then have inadequate cooling is more a design flaw, IMO.
Good thing is they’re done with Intel, so it will run cool again.
My read on the situation is that Apple has a design/package they want to deliver to the user base, and they are willing to cut whatever corners are necessary to do so. For example, Intel had little do with the MPB keyboard.