Totally agree with you! AppleInsider has become extremely biased and I no longer intend to visit it simply because I'm sick and tired of hearing unreasonable justifications supporting Apple no matter what they do.
I'm an Apple fan but come on, you cannot support them in every decision they make! Especially when they decide to put the 9400M integrated graphics into their 2 lowest end iMacs. The previous model had discrete graphics cards and it's simply laughable to compare integrated graphics with dedicated as in this article. Check the tests yourself...http://www.notebookcheck.net/Compari...rds.130.0.html
Why should I buy a computer that just downgraded it's graphics card? Especially to a card designed for notebooks like the Macbook?
It is more powerful than the discrete card anyway just get the better card 4850 or better still go buy a PC.
To be perfectly fair, if you get a Dell it will come with Microsoft Works, and Windows also has some iLife-like software things like Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Media Player and Movie Maker.
Of course, iLife is still way better than anything Microsoft offers... but that doesn't make the comparison anything close to objective.
That's exactly the point - iLife is way better than anything (and everything) that comes with the other two computers, so it is an advantage for Apple. Now maybe the category should have been listed as "software in the box." Then there would be no argument, correct?
Uh, for you information, I've been checking AppleInsider for the past few years. Never registered because I didn't see the point in arguing with Apple fanboys like you.
Sooo, what is the point now? What changed your opinion? Or are you just doing something pointless...
Being a mac fan doesn't mean you have to blindly accept everything Apple does. They make some great decisions and some terrible ones, I see nothing wrong with commenting on both.
I don't see why people can't accept the fact that the iMac is a good deal, compared with the closest similar offerings from Dell and HP. Again, it's for those who want the convenience of a good performing all-in-one computer.
If you want to argue that Apple should make an affordable headless Mac, then that's fine (and I agree with you - I don't think they should make a bare bones budget computer, but I'd like a mid-priced tower). That doesn't take away from the fact that the computers that Apple does make are valued appropriately.
You're grasping at straws. The comparison is for those people who want the advantages of an all-in-one. Is that so hard to understand?
Nowhere does the report say this is the best computer you can buy (or put together) for a certain amount of money. It merely says that for comparable manufacturers' all-in-ones, Apple has slightly better value than Dell or HP.
Nice figure of speech. But yea, I understood the point of the article perfectly, hence my first paragraph. And these advantages you speak of for all-in-ones (desktops, naturally)? There are none. Not when you custom build. If you like all-in-ones from manufacturers (and the inflexability/limitations that come with them), that's great, but thats not the only option out there. If you're looking to obtain the ultimate value (per dollar) in computer hardware, building is the only way.
I'm looking to buy the Imac. Work is paying and so I'm not that price sensitive. Just offends the sensibilities a bit. I also fear that it will be dated very quickly and the video card issue does worry me and I'm totally NOT a power user or naturally a gamer.
I paid a great deal for an SSD Macbook Air, which I love as its so portable, has a great screen and keyboard (great for travel or even around the house). I enjoy it every day.
Nice machine the MBA, but I find it overheats and stalls and it particularly weak at video processing. If If I occasionally can't watch a video in avi, quicktime or a recorded HD video (using a tuner) on a computer bought in 2007 its worrying and that is what I see with the MBA.
So the integrated graphics issue is troubling to me as I know I will use a TV tuner (already have one).
All computers get dated, but I would have liked a strong video processor and a quad processor as that is what I see at best buy on cheaper machines.
(P.S. Blue ray is a pacing fad for film/tv as we will be all electronic distribution in a few years. So that does not bother me. However, I'm sure there are posters here who wanted it for storage options.)
That's exactly the point - iLife is way better than anything (and everything) that comes with the other two computers, so it is an advantage for Apple. Now maybe the category should have been listed as "software in the box." Then there would be no argument, correct?
You?re wasting your time trying to explain the value of a mac to some of these people. I?ve tried many times. All they see is sticker price, the Dell or HP is cheaper...it?s better. They can?t understand that the value is more than the sticker price. Personally a free PC computer is worthless to me, I could use it for a door stop, but other than that I don?t even want it. If a computer doesn?t come with all the benefits of Apple design, OSX, iLife and iWork it?s useless, it has no value at all.
Yeah, that no TV tuner in the iMac really does it for me.
I'd like something in-between a Mac Mini and an iMac but Apple appears to believe that I don't need such a system and that they can't design one that is stylish enough for their tastes.
And these advantages you speak of for all-in-ones (desktops, naturally)? There are none. Not when you custom build.
Do you see that this is an unusual case, or are you suggesting that large percentages of computer buyers are going to be putting together/custom building their own computers? That is rediculous.
Or do you suggest that people go to independent custom builders.
My mom did that 7 years ago. A friend of a friend had a buisness that built her a windows machine and saved her TONS of money. Except that it never worked right. The builder came over 5-6 times to make repairs and adjustemnts. Eventually, my mom got tired of calling him... and got an iMac. I'm sure you could convince her that she got robbed, but 7 years later it still does what she needs every day.
While I agree that the report seems tilted to favor iMacs, that's more a result of it being easier to tilt a report in favor of Macs than in favor of its competitors. The general point AppleInsider is making is that the first-glance VALUE of an iMac "relatively" (read the note on the chart) leads - not eclipses - the competition.
Remember two things:
1) most consumers pretend to do their homework on processor speed, RAM, graphics, etc. but in reality care most about the final off-the-shelf price and overall impression of quality/performance. This report "roughly" summarizes how iMacs might come out on top in this way. Purchasing iMacs is easier math than a comparable Dell/HP. The inclusion of iLife may be questionable; but how easily it impresses most consumers and sells as working right out of the box no extra cost or setup, compared to the messy media kits in Windows machines makes it an understandable advantage to include.
2) There are several features not even included in favor of the iMacs that would easily match (if not outweigh) some of the features or models not included for Dell and HP. Not least of which is the iMac being, not just an all-in-one machine, but also a TWO-IN-ONE machine with it's ability to run both OSX and Windows. Start with the sales-pitch that an iMac is almost two computers for the price of one, and you have a VALUE proposition that any model or configuration of Dell/HP machines would struggle to overcome.
the article clearly states it is comparing the iMacs to other "all in one" computers. Of course Dell and HP make a thousand different computers, each with thousands of different variations. Apple keeps it simple, and gets it right. Any "apple tax" is clearly outweighed by the intangible value of Macs over PCs (hardware design, reliability, OSX, iLife, etc).
This is all ridiculous. I cannot believe my eyes. First of all you are comparing the iMac to a multi touch computer which is relatively new and obviously over priced just due to the fact that it is multi touch. Second There is a Dell for 999 that comes with the 2.66 i7..... with a 256 MB nvidia chipset... so why not mention products that actually have value. Don't compare it to the worst deals a company has. I had high expectations for the imac and mac pro but this is just ridiculous. Terrible comparisons and the study just seems under studied. You can purchase an alienware with similar and or better specs for cheaper than that.
I agree that the new iMac lineup is generally well positioned relative to other all-in-ones.
As an observation on the positioning of the various iMac models, it only costs $50 to upgrade the GT130 (rebranded 9600GSO rebranded 8800GS) to the HD4850 which should completely dominate the GT130. It's a very worthwhile upgrade. I don't know why Apple even bothers offering the GT130, since the small price difference means the GT130 has little value. If they are selling it to consumers for $50, the actual cost difference to them would be even smaller, so they could have just absorbed the cost, deleted the GT130, and offset it with a simplified supply and production chain. The best price/performance GPU in the iMac lineup is definitely the HD4850.
I think the problem for Apple is most people only compare the hardware but with the Mac its the software that makes it worth the extra money
I am not sure this is a problem for Apple. Apple make the best product they can. Their machines are well specked and very 'complete' in terms of the user experience. The iMac is, for most people, a beautiful and even aspirational machine. Apple has stated many times that it is NOT interested in numbers for the sake of numbers. Just about everybody wants Apple to lower its prices and produce niche machines and Apple has repeatedly said it won't do it. Apple makes a big saving through efficient design and a narrow product range. It has ALWAYS been that way. Apple competes entirely on their own terms and the do pretty well. I don't think Apple has a problem at all. I think it is the other way around. 'Most people' have a problem with Apple. (specially the ones frequenting Apple related forums ;-))
You can get a better specked machine for less - it is a fact. But features and purchase price are not the reasons people buy Apple computers. It may be why most people buy PC, but that has little to do with it. Most people who buy Apple computers are very happy about their purchase.
...If you like all-in-ones from manufacturers (and the inflexability/limitations that come with them),...
Does everyone not see that it all depends on your viewpoint? The comments are as biased as the article, at least. This comment says inflexibility / limitations - but a "fanboy" could have just as easily said reliability / advantages - because that's what All-in-One means to many, many people.
Obviously we can't hold Apple responsible for the requirements of someone who likes to build their own. And the demographics Apple is after have a lot more to do with people who would NEVER conceive of building a PC than people who would. Yes, Apple is after the people who want All-in-One - what's wrong with that? It appeals to a large segment of the population.
... What's funny is that when there is a mention about Apple not offering a tower, iMac fans say that the iMac is all you need and covers the place of a tower. Then when it comes to comparing value, they say 'ah but it's not a tower though is it, it's an AIO so you can only compare prices with other AIOs'. ... Either it is a mid-range tower replacement or it isn't. ...
While someone may have done this on this thread (not sure haven't read so much of it), this is a total straw-man argument for the most part.
The iMac is Apple's desktop product, period. The various models should be comparable to what in the PC world is generally referred to as a mid-range desktop tower as well as any "All-in-one" desktops. For higher end desktops, or full towers, or gaming machines, the comparison should be to the Mac Pro.
Personally I have never heard anyone say what you are putting in people's mouths above. Even if some have however, it's certainly a misrepresentation to imply that all people, or all Mac users/supporters etc. do this kind of bait and switch arguing, as you have.
Comments
Totally agree with you! AppleInsider has become extremely biased and I no longer intend to visit it simply because I'm sick and tired of hearing unreasonable justifications supporting Apple no matter what they do.
I'm an Apple fan but come on, you cannot support them in every decision they make! Especially when they decide to put the 9400M integrated graphics into their 2 lowest end iMacs. The previous model had discrete graphics cards and it's simply laughable to compare integrated graphics with dedicated as in this article. Check the tests yourself...http://www.notebookcheck.net/Compari...rds.130.0.html
Why should I buy a computer that just downgraded it's graphics card? Especially to a card designed for notebooks like the Macbook?
It is more powerful than the discrete card anyway just get the better card 4850 or better still go buy a PC.
To be perfectly fair, if you get a Dell it will come with Microsoft Works, and Windows also has some iLife-like software things like Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Media Player and Movie Maker.
Of course, iLife is still way better than anything Microsoft offers... but that doesn't make the comparison anything close to objective.
That's exactly the point - iLife is way better than anything (and everything) that comes with the other two computers, so it is an advantage for Apple. Now maybe the category should have been listed as "software in the box." Then there would be no argument, correct?
Uh, for you information, I've been checking AppleInsider for the past few years. Never registered because I didn't see the point in arguing with Apple fanboys like you.
Sooo, what is the point now? What changed your opinion? Or are you just doing something pointless...
Because it's not?
Being a mac fan doesn't mean you have to blindly accept everything Apple does. They make some great decisions and some terrible ones, I see nothing wrong with commenting on both.
I don't see why people can't accept the fact that the iMac is a good deal, compared with the closest similar offerings from Dell and HP. Again, it's for those who want the convenience of a good performing all-in-one computer.
If you want to argue that Apple should make an affordable headless Mac, then that's fine (and I agree with you - I don't think they should make a bare bones budget computer, but I'd like a mid-priced tower). That doesn't take away from the fact that the computers that Apple does make are valued appropriately.
snip
The short of it is that Apple are using their software to sell overpriced, novelty hardware. This is because of design and nothing else.
snip
novely hardware? what do you mean by that?
please elaborate...
You're grasping at straws. The comparison is for those people who want the advantages of an all-in-one. Is that so hard to understand?
Nowhere does the report say this is the best computer you can buy (or put together) for a certain amount of money. It merely says that for comparable manufacturers' all-in-ones, Apple has slightly better value than Dell or HP.
Nice figure of speech.
If you're looking to obtain the ultimate value (per dollar) in computer hardware, building is the only way.
Notebooks sinks this theory.
I paid a great deal for an SSD Macbook Air, which I love as its so portable, has a great screen and keyboard (great for travel or even around the house). I enjoy it every day.
Nice machine the MBA, but I find it overheats and stalls and it particularly weak at video processing. If If I occasionally can't watch a video in avi, quicktime or a recorded HD video (using a tuner) on a computer bought in 2007 its worrying and that is what I see with the MBA.
So the integrated graphics issue is troubling to me as I know I will use a TV tuner (already have one).
All computers get dated, but I would have liked a strong video processor and a quad processor as that is what I see at best buy on cheaper machines.
(P.S. Blue ray is a pacing fad for film/tv as we will be all electronic distribution in a few years. So that does not bother me. However, I'm sure there are posters here who wanted it for storage options.)
That's exactly the point - iLife is way better than anything (and everything) that comes with the other two computers, so it is an advantage for Apple. Now maybe the category should have been listed as "software in the box." Then there would be no argument, correct?
You?re wasting your time trying to explain the value of a mac to some of these people. I?ve tried many times. All they see is sticker price, the Dell or HP is cheaper...it?s better. They can?t understand that the value is more than the sticker price. Personally a free PC computer is worthless to me, I could use it for a door stop, but other than that I don?t even want it. If a computer doesn?t come with all the benefits of Apple design, OSX, iLife and iWork it?s useless, it has no value at all.
I'd like something in-between a Mac Mini and an iMac but Apple appears to believe that I don't need such a system and that they can't design one that is stylish enough for their tastes.
- Great Value
- Great hardware AND software
- Happy Customer
And these advantages you speak of for all-in-ones (desktops, naturally)? There are none. Not when you custom build.
Do you see that this is an unusual case, or are you suggesting that large percentages of computer buyers are going to be putting together/custom building their own computers? That is rediculous.
Or do you suggest that people go to independent custom builders.
My mom did that 7 years ago. A friend of a friend had a buisness that built her a windows machine and saved her TONS of money. Except that it never worked right. The builder came over 5-6 times to make repairs and adjustemnts. Eventually, my mom got tired of calling him... and got an iMac. I'm sure you could convince her that she got robbed, but 7 years later it still does what she needs every day.
Remember two things:
1) most consumers pretend to do their homework on processor speed, RAM, graphics, etc. but in reality care most about the final off-the-shelf price and overall impression of quality/performance. This report "roughly" summarizes how iMacs might come out on top in this way. Purchasing iMacs is easier math than a comparable Dell/HP. The inclusion of iLife may be questionable; but how easily it impresses most consumers and sells as working right out of the box no extra cost or setup, compared to the messy media kits in Windows machines makes it an understandable advantage to include.
2) There are several features not even included in favor of the iMacs that would easily match (if not outweigh) some of the features or models not included for Dell and HP. Not least of which is the iMac being, not just an all-in-one machine, but also a TWO-IN-ONE machine with it's ability to run both OSX and Windows. Start with the sales-pitch that an iMac is almost two computers for the price of one, and you have a VALUE proposition that any model or configuration of Dell/HP machines would struggle to overcome.
the article clearly states it is comparing the iMacs to other "all in one" computers. Of course Dell and HP make a thousand different computers, each with thousands of different variations. Apple keeps it simple, and gets it right. Any "apple tax" is clearly outweighed by the intangible value of Macs over PCs (hardware design, reliability, OSX, iLife, etc).
This is all ridiculous. I cannot believe my eyes. First of all you are comparing the iMac to a multi touch computer which is relatively new and obviously over priced just due to the fact that it is multi touch. Second There is a Dell for 999 that comes with the 2.66 i7..... with a 256 MB nvidia chipset... so why not mention products that actually have value. Don't compare it to the worst deals a company has. I had high expectations for the imac and mac pro but this is just ridiculous. Terrible comparisons and the study just seems under studied. You can purchase an alienware with similar and or better specs for cheaper than that.
As an observation on the positioning of the various iMac models, it only costs $50 to upgrade the GT130 (rebranded 9600GSO rebranded 8800GS) to the HD4850 which should completely dominate the GT130. It's a very worthwhile upgrade. I don't know why Apple even bothers offering the GT130, since the small price difference means the GT130 has little value. If they are selling it to consumers for $50, the actual cost difference to them would be even smaller, so they could have just absorbed the cost, deleted the GT130, and offset it with a simplified supply and production chain. The best price/performance GPU in the iMac lineup is definitely the HD4850.
I think the problem for Apple is most people only compare the hardware but with the Mac its the software that makes it worth the extra money
I am not sure this is a problem for Apple. Apple make the best product they can. Their machines are well specked and very 'complete' in terms of the user experience. The iMac is, for most people, a beautiful and even aspirational machine. Apple has stated many times that it is NOT interested in numbers for the sake of numbers. Just about everybody wants Apple to lower its prices and produce niche machines and Apple has repeatedly said it won't do it. Apple makes a big saving through efficient design and a narrow product range. It has ALWAYS been that way. Apple competes entirely on their own terms and the do pretty well. I don't think Apple has a problem at all. I think it is the other way around. 'Most people' have a problem with Apple. (specially the ones frequenting Apple related forums ;-))
You can get a better specked machine for less - it is a fact. But features and purchase price are not the reasons people buy Apple computers. It may be why most people buy PC, but that has little to do with it. Most people who buy Apple computers are very happy about their purchase.
...If you like all-in-ones from manufacturers (and the inflexability/limitations that come with them),...
Does everyone not see that it all depends on your viewpoint? The comments are as biased as the article, at least. This comment says inflexibility / limitations - but a "fanboy" could have just as easily said reliability / advantages - because that's what All-in-One means to many, many people.
Obviously we can't hold Apple responsible for the requirements of someone who likes to build their own. And the demographics Apple is after have a lot more to do with people who would NEVER conceive of building a PC than people who would. Yes, Apple is after the people who want All-in-One - what's wrong with that? It appeals to a large segment of the population.
... What's funny is that when there is a mention about Apple not offering a tower, iMac fans say that the iMac is all you need and covers the place of a tower. Then when it comes to comparing value, they say 'ah but it's not a tower though is it, it's an AIO so you can only compare prices with other AIOs'. ... Either it is a mid-range tower replacement or it isn't. ...
While someone may have done this on this thread (not sure haven't read so much of it), this is a total straw-man argument for the most part.
The iMac is Apple's desktop product, period. The various models should be comparable to what in the PC world is generally referred to as a mid-range desktop tower as well as any "All-in-one" desktops. For higher end desktops, or full towers, or gaming machines, the comparison should be to the Mac Pro.
Personally I have never heard anyone say what you are putting in people's mouths above. Even if some have however, it's certainly a misrepresentation to imply that all people, or all Mac users/supporters etc. do this kind of bait and switch arguing, as you have.