Watched the video and I wasn't impressed. The biggest issue I have is Apple pushing AI to fix bad writing skills. If I was an English teacher, I'd find a new job because every paper will end up looking the same because AI will correct every typo, every contextual error (like in my second sentence) and every error in content. Why even teach English (or any other language) when AI will effectively write everything you ever need to do no matter what grade level or technical level in a job.
I, along with others, am tired of the iMac taking second (or third, or fourth) fiddle to laptops. Why isn't the iMac getting a Pro or Max version? The iMac ends up costing nearly the same as a MacBook Pro with at least the Pro chip. Why should any of have to spend 2 to 3x the amount of the base iMac on a iMac Pro when all that needs to be changed is the SoC? I also want a 27" 5K display. The display on my 2019 fully blown Intel iMac is just fine so why can't Apple slide in an M4 Pro or Max into the chin of my 27" display.
I'll wait to see what the new M4 Mac Mini contains and how much it costs. It might be time for me to just get a reasonably priced 4-5K display, attach (if it doesn't have one) a decent quality front camera and go with that. I checked trade-in value for my fully blown 2019 3.6GHz iMac, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD and Radeon Pro Vega 48 8 GB. All they want to give me is less than a $400 trade-in.
"Storage starts at 256GB" Pathetic base storage, as usual. Apple really needs to be more competitive at this base level.
Why would a point of sale terminal need more than 256GB?
iMacs are used for all kinds of purposes, not just what you think they should be used for.
I just wrote something similar but AI’s broken forum verification deleted it after it said it was successful.
i think a lot of people only can see products for how they would use them. Most iMac users I know would be unlikely to use much of the internal storage so making it lower is more competitive than adding a cost to the consumer for the base model.
I’m surprised that nobody complains about the 24” screen size. I’d never even consider iMac simply because of that. 27” feels like the bare minimum to me. 32” would make it a decent contender.
As usual, a misunderstanding of the target market for a piece of Apple hardware. The iMac target market is fine with a 24" screen. End of story. Anyone who needs something larger can buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio, both available at a variety of price points and spec levels so you can buy only what you actually need and then pair it with the monitor of your choice at any size you like. Problem solved. Also, as usual, a misunderstanding of Apple. Apple is in the business of making money. IF--knowing all that they know from actual data about their customer base --Apple thought there was sufficient money to be made in manufacturing a 27" iMac or an iMac Pro, both of which were former products, they would be making them.
I see that Apple said that the M4 is 1.7 times faster than the M1, how about telling us how much faster the M4 is compared to the M2 & the M3.
Could it be that it’s not very much faster than the M3?
What Apple is actually saying on the iMac product page is that it's 2.1 times faster "on demanding creative workflows" and up to 70% faster for everyday tasks. First: they're comparing it to M! (and also to Intel-based Macs) because the vast majority of potential upgraders will be coming from those machines. Remember: there was no M2 iMac ever released. It went from M1 to M3 only one year ago and only deep-pocketed hardware geeks would be upgrading from that model to M4.
About those speed numbers Apple quoted: it actually isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the fine print, you'll read that the M1 machine tested had 16GB memory, which was the maximum for that machine, while the M4 model tested had 32GB, which probably contributed to the speed difference in a demanding creative workflow, where double the memory could make a real difference--it wasn't all about the chip and it's going to cost you an extra $400 to go from 16GB to 32GB on the M4 iMacs. Nevertheless, in demanding workflows where you're doing computer tasks that are both repetitive and time-consuming, if you can achieve them twice as fast, that really adds up.
As for "70% faster for everyday tasks," that sounds impressive but may not mean much. Everyday tasks are pretty much instantaneous, so how much are you going to notice a 70% improvement on "instantaneous?" If something that took half a second now takes a quarter second, that's 100% faster, but are you going to notice that? Probably not.
I'm surprised, especially for future-proofing a desktop machine, that they bumped the Wifi to the nearly useless 6E instead of going to 7, which is a standard now supported in routers that start as low as $99. And there are honestly no words for keeping the new USB-C port on the underside of the mouse. The only thing that makes sense at this point is some kind of deathbed pact with Steve never to change his design, no matter how much it pisses off customers.
I hate it when they do that. It's probably 10-20% faster, depending on single vs multi-core tasks. The NPU of-course will be much faster.
I actually love that they did this comparison. Obviously it can be a marketing tactic, but most people aren’t upgrading from M3 to M4. I’m upgrading from M1 to M4 Mini as soon as that’s announced, so M1 vs M4 is exactly what I want to know. My guess is that they expect a lot of upgrades like me this cycle.
Chances are that the M1 crowd won't make that many upgraders.
The majority of them should come from the "still running Intel" crowd.
The M1 (along with its Pro and Max variants) is still a very impressive processor. I don't see why many common folk that already purchased an M1 Mac some years ago will be inclined to spend the money and get this. Faster web browsing, word processing???
Watched the video and I wasn't impressed. The biggest issue I have is Apple pushing AI to fix bad writing skills. If I was an English teacher, I'd find a new job because every paper will end up looking the same because AI will correct every typo, every contextual error (like in my second sentence) and every error in content. Why even teach English (or any other language) when AI will effectively write everything you ever need to do no matter what grade level or technical level in a job.
I, along with others, am tired of the iMac taking second (or third, or fourth) fiddle to laptops. Why isn't the iMac getting a Pro or Max version? The iMac ends up costing nearly the same as a MacBook Pro with at least the Pro chip. Why should any of have to spend 2 to 3x the amount of the base iMac on a iMac Pro when all that needs to be changed is the SoC? I also want a 27" 5K display. The display on my 2019 fully blown Intel iMac is just fine so why can't Apple slide in an M4 Pro or Max into the chin of my 27" display.
I'll wait to see what the new M4 Mac Mini contains and how much it costs. It might be time for me to just get a reasonably priced 4-5K display, attach (if it doesn't have one) a decent quality front camera and go with that. I checked trade-in value for my fully blown 2019 3.6GHz iMac, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD and Radeon Pro Vega 48 8 GB. All they want to give me is less than a $400 trade-in.
“ I also want a 27" 5K display. The display on my 2019 fully blown Intel iMac is just fine so why can't Apple slide in an M4 Pro or Max into the chin of my 27" display. “
Comments
I, along with others, am tired of the iMac taking second (or third, or fourth) fiddle to laptops. Why isn't the iMac getting a Pro or Max version? The iMac ends up costing nearly the same as a MacBook Pro with at least the Pro chip. Why should any of have to spend 2 to 3x the amount of the base iMac on a iMac Pro when all that needs to be changed is the SoC? I also want a 27" 5K display. The display on my 2019 fully blown Intel iMac is just fine so why can't Apple slide in an M4 Pro or Max into the chin of my 27" display.
I'll wait to see what the new M4 Mac Mini contains and how much it costs. It might be time for me to just get a reasonably priced 4-5K display, attach (if it doesn't have one) a decent quality front camera and go with that. I checked trade-in value for my fully blown 2019 3.6GHz iMac, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD and Radeon Pro Vega 48 8 GB. All they want to give me is less than a $400 trade-in.
i think a lot of people only can see products for how they would use them. Most iMac users I know would be unlikely to use much of the internal storage so making it lower is more competitive than adding a cost to the consumer for the base model.
rodwslc said:
What Apple is actually saying on the iMac product page is that it's 2.1 times faster "on demanding creative workflows" and up to 70% faster for everyday tasks. First: they're comparing it to M! (and also to Intel-based Macs) because the vast majority of potential upgraders will be coming from those machines. Remember: there was no M2 iMac ever released. It went from M1 to M3 only one year ago and only deep-pocketed hardware geeks would be upgrading from that model to M4.
About those speed numbers Apple quoted: it actually isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the fine print, you'll read that the M1 machine tested had 16GB memory, which was the maximum for that machine, while the M4 model tested had 32GB, which probably contributed to the speed difference in a demanding creative workflow, where double the memory could make a real difference--it wasn't all about the chip and it's going to cost you an extra $400 to go from 16GB to 32GB on the M4 iMacs. Nevertheless, in demanding workflows where you're doing computer tasks that are both repetitive and time-consuming, if you can achieve them twice as fast, that really adds up.
As for "70% faster for everyday tasks," that sounds impressive but may not mean much. Everyday tasks are pretty much instantaneous, so how much are you going to notice a 70% improvement on "instantaneous?" If something that took half a second now takes a quarter second, that's 100% faster, but are you going to notice that? Probably not.
I'm surprised, especially for future-proofing a desktop machine, that they bumped the Wifi to the nearly useless 6E instead of going to 7, which is a standard now supported in routers that start as low as $99. And there are honestly no words for keeping the new USB-C port on the underside of the mouse. The only thing that makes sense at this point is some kind of deathbed pact with Steve never to change his design, no matter how much it pisses off customers.