muhahahahahahaha, another ludicrous propagandist drivel... It even seems that for some self-deceptive propagandist the imac's intel core 2 duo cpu as more "advantages" than an intel core 2 quad (sic)... Pathetic.
Between all these -dishonest intellectually- falsehoods and gross misrepresentations, fact is that anybody with two hands and one hour of spare time can build a pc for half the price of a comparable mac, with the exact same hardware (minus the shiny case), same brand parts coming from the same factories (intel, nvidia, etc), just sold two times more than their casual price by apple to delusional/self-conditioned fanbois. Keep drinking the kool aid, being in denial for we don't know which reason (brand adulation?) is what make people great and mature.
Another lens to look through are the financial results of their product mix. Apple has held on to profitability with its AIO line, Dell's profits are down 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
The iMac isn't a bad computer but it's important to realize one salient fact.
The iMac is your ONLY solution for Macs $1200-2200. They are Apple's high volume computing line.
If you asked HP or Dell about their AIO they'd say that they serve a portion of their clientele that desire AIO form factor but would probably state their minitower desktops are their high volume.
You can view almost any product through the right lens and get the answer you want.
Agreed, this article is just doing its best to put Apple in the best possible light -- I mean, what do you expect from a website called "AppleInsider."
"The Oppenheimer analyst also used his report Tuesday to perform a side-by-side comparison of the new iMacs against all-in-one desktops from Dell and HP. "
You throw out the Quad core as though that automatically means better system performance, which it most certainly does not. The iMac is not competing directly with any of those crap machines sold at Staples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
But, when I open the weekly flyer from Staples, I see an HP tower with an Intel quad-core Core 2 Quad Q8200 CPU, a Blu-Ray drive, a 19 inches screen, a 500 GB hard drive and 4 GB of RAM for only $949 Canadian dollars (regular price is $1219).
iMacs are not competing with the most expensive computers on the market, but quad-core desktop computers that sell for much less.
The same Staples flyer quotes a price of $1699 and $2299 for 2 different models of HP Touchsmart all-in-one computers with Core 2 Duo CPUs and a Blu-Ray drive for the most expensive model.
I saw a comparison recently that compared processors between the iMac and a high end AIO and it even had a quad 2.33GHz in it and they gave the 2.66GHz dual core iMac the points. For certain tasks, the dual core will be faster but not in general.
Its been shown in general a faster dual core processor will have better performance than a slower quad core processor. Only under certain circumstances will the slower quad core have better performance.
Quote:
There is also a laptop showing on Engadget that has a Core i7 in it so if they can put a Core i7 desktop chip in a laptop, Apple could have at least put Core 2 Quad in their iMac.
It looks as though Apple were more concerned with lowering the price than a major component update. Quad core will be coming to the iMac.
Quote:
Not to mention in a few months, we get Grand Central. It will be used for OpenCL presumably but for software that isn't written to take advantage of OpenCL, it will be largely a worthless addition for the iMac.
In playing to your audience. I seriously doubt most of the people purchasing iMac will be concerned with Grand Central.
Quote:
Either it is a mid-range tower replacement or it isn't. If it is then we are perfectly within our rights to compare it with PC towers and it falls far short in terms of value. If it's not a replacement then there is an important element missing in Apple's lineup.
In this comparison the term value can differ. Part of the value of the iMac is in having a the entire machine in one package. Their is no clearly defined way to equate that value to a general desktop.
But we do know that Apple is making more money from the iMac than Dell or HP are making from their desktop lines.
You call this perspective? Perspective is seeing the fact that Windows XP has around 60% of the market. Mac OS X has around 9% of the market. Vista is competing with XP not Mac OS X.
Yes I would call a success, the ability to sell 12 million machines and make more money than a competitor who sells 200 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
90% of Apples' recent success is down to Vista and 10% down to Apple.
And remember that *success* is relative Apple will sell approx 12m machines in a market that overall worldwide will comprise approx 260m machines.
I find the posts more negative and critical lately....I enjoy the humorous comments the most. I think the majority of the complaints are from the techies arguing over the minutia.
I would like to see a 30" top of the line iMac. A full size keyboard on a 10" MBA, a 15" MBA and a 17" MBA alongside the current 13" MBA and alongside the complete MB and MB line. A new 30" monitor and a DVR in AppleTV.
I own the first intel duo 20" iMac, the first intel iBook 2nd gen ATV and the first gen iPhone all with AppleCare. I upgrade the OS, iLife and iWork every time and only buy Apple SW and hardware. Apple serves me well and with a minimum of headaches, wires and looks good too. I would never consider a Windows or Microsoft product.
Any thoughts?
Be careful with the word "Techies" they will call you childish.
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.
If work is paying, then the answer is either MacBook Pro, or Mac Pro.
My workplace bought some (now old) 8-core Mac Pros for the lab, maxed out with RAM and storage. After using them for lab work, it's mighty difficult to return to my everyday XP ThinkPad laptops - waiting for Windows to startup, Outlook to load, PowerPoint to load/save, Windows to sleep, etc.
"Experiencing something better can make what you have feel like torture."
Form over function. Nothing new. The iMac "desktop" has been a laptop on a stick (or in an inverted bowl) for many years.
Apple's profit margins being twice the industry average (and sometimes more) is the direct indicator of the "Apple tax". The value of the Mac over a PC is a perceived one by many people. It's one of simple taste. The intangibles (thus the tax) are made possible by being different through both software and enclosures. Those that are sold by it will accept those perceptions that Apple sells (obviously) despite real-world costs. (i.e. iLife and OSX together are worth only $169 retail and are already figured into the price as Apple sees fit to price it, not the actual several hundred dollar difference between machines of comparable specs.)
The other arguments like "better parts", etc. are often fluff to convince themselves about the value of the purchase they bought. And everything else on the market is crap because they've accepted Apple as their lifestyle brand. Push Pepsi on any hardcore Coke drinker... same thing.
When the math doesn't add up and is dared to be brought up, the argument often gets redirected into what users "need". i.e. You only need the specs that conveniently match that of Apple products, being their bottom line of that circular debate.
My only particular beef with Apple are the huge, gaping holes in the lineup which are beyond excuse IMO... Except of course when Apple's profitability is the iron-clad defense rubbed into my face for wanting something not available in the gimped lineup. As if their profitability (thanks much to said tax and other non-computer products) is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted, thanks to the warped value-add model.
In any event, the gaping holes being:
- No 15" laptop under $2000.
- No 17" laptop under $2800.
- No desktop with upgradable graphics (or any real desktop at all, period) under $2500.
You call this perspective? Perspective is seeing the fact that Windows XP has around 60% of the market. Mac OS X has around 9% of the market. Vista is competing with XP not Mac OS X.
Yes I would call a success, the ability to sell 12 million machines and make more money than a competitor who sells 200 million.
I'll say it again only slower....
12m out of 260m (and 12m is generous)
it doesn't matter what Apple do with their computers..... not enough people buy them for them to be vaguely relevant.
Take your point about Vista and XP but XP is still Windows.
I can't argue with you anymore than this, the randomness of your conclusions are mindblowing.
You can get the 15" laptop under $2000 and the 17" laptop under $2800 if you're willing to buy clearance (new but last generation) Macs. I got my early 2008 2.5GHz 15" MacBook Pro for $1350 when Amazon was clearing them out right after the unibodies were introduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11
- No desktop with upgradable graphics (or any real desktop at all, period) under $2500.
I assume you mean with display. Otherwise the low-end Mac Pro is $2499, and clearance ones will also get under $2500, though not with display included.
Apple sold a little over 8 million machines in 2008. My point is in the end what is the advantage of selling more if you aren't making more (in some cases less)money.
If Apple weren't relevant why are so many people talking about it?
I'm not sure what's random about my conclusions they are in direct response to yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
I'll say it again only slower....
12m out of 260m (and 12m is generous)
it doesn't matter what Apple do with their computers..... not enough people buy them for them to be vaguely relevant.
Take your point about Vista and XP but XP is still Windows.
I can't argue with you anymore than this, the randomness of your conclusions are mindblowing.
I really don't understand why you care. If you are the enlightened one, why come here and complain about those of us who are not as visionary as yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
Is there another company whose most devout followers enjoy getting financially shafted so much.???
The ridiculous profit margin is worn like a badge of honour by the mac heads. Do they not realise it is them fuelling it??
90% of Apples' recent success is down to Vista and 10% down to Apple.
And remember that *success* is relative Apple will sell approx 12m machines in a market that overall worldwide will comprise approx 260m machines.
perspective...
Thank you for just proving my point. That even will all the millions of PC's sold compared to Apple, the PC makers can't seem to make enough revenue to support their model yet Apple is in great financial health given the current market conditions.
Well then maybe this isn't the site for you and you should stop visiting it. Find a site that reports in a way you agree with and enjoy yourself. Why make attacking comments? Your words won't change the report you just read. If you want to vent frustration to AppleInsider by all means do, but there is no need to involve the rest of us in it.
Well, there's nothing wrong about agreeing or disagreeing publicly in forums like this.
At the end of a day, it is in AppleInsider interest to attract as many readers as they can, and if it turns out that significant number of readers prefers unbiased articles, that is reality AI has to accept... or decrease it's readers' base.
Regarding this article, whatever the source is, it simply does not hold the ground. iMac is the only mid-level desktop option for Apple, and as such it competes with desktop PCs in general. AIO PCs are so insignificantly represented in PC market that even calling them niche would be overstatement of the century. Plus, HP Touchsmart is AIO desktop with touch screen and as such represents category of it's own; all the advertising materials we are receiving from HP resellers are orbiting around the fact that it is freakin' touch screen device.
Apple's profit margins being twice the industry average (and sometimes more) is the direct indicator of the "Apple tax".
Apple's higher margins largely come from Apple not playing in the low cost low margin market.
Quote:
The other arguments like "better parts", etc. are often fluff to convince themselves about the value of the purchase they bought.
I think most everyone will agree a laptop body machined from one solid block of aluminum is a better part than a laptop body made from molded plastic snapped together.
Quote:
When the math doesn't add up and is dared to be brought up, the argument often gets redirected into what users "need". i.e. You only need the specs that conveniently match that of Apple products, being their bottom line of that circular debate.
People want to simplify the debate around specs. Specs are not the only consideration and alone don't make a good computer. Every computer has to make some compromise one way or another, what makes for the best compromise is subjective.
Quote:
My only particular beef with Apple are the huge, gaping holes in the lineup which are beyond excuse IMO... Except of course when Apple's profitability is the iron-clad defense rubbed into my face for wanting something not available in the gimped lineup. As if their profitability (thanks much to said tax and other non-computer products) is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted, thanks to the warped value-add model.
Profitability is the reason why Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft and everyone else are doing any of what they do. Profitability is the whole point.
Apple has offered a wider computer line in the past and it proved less profitable than Apple's currently limited line.
Nope! just an everyday worker bee....but my time is worth $150 an hour and I don't want to be mucking about with a windows machine.... been up till 2am trying to "fix" windows machines too many times!
Whether the iMac is good value or nor in comparison with the competition, depends on what OS you want to run.
If you want to run OS X, and work with pictures, you want a good picture on screen. And one that does not change with time. That means today you should be using LED lighting because is more stable (less resyncing/calibration of your screen).
Second, you want a faster machine, and Apple has chosen to use dual core CPUs only. And this is at a time when they have shown the next version of the OS, due in few months, where one of the main features will be Grand Central, a rewrite of significant portions to make various tasks run in parallell.
The current iMac will not be able to take advantage of Grand Central as effectively as a Quad core.
So the message as I read the facts, is wait a while before you buy your next one, at least until Snow Leopard has become available.
Comments
muhahahahahahaha, another ludicrous propagandist drivel... It even seems that for some self-deceptive propagandist the imac's intel core 2 duo cpu as more "advantages" than an intel core 2 quad (sic)... Pathetic.
Between all these -dishonest intellectually- falsehoods and gross misrepresentations, fact is that anybody with two hands and one hour of spare time can build a pc for half the price of a comparable mac, with the exact same hardware (minus the shiny case), same brand parts coming from the same factories (intel, nvidia, etc), just sold two times more than their casual price by apple to delusional/self-conditioned fanbois. Keep drinking the kool aid, being in denial for we don't know which reason (brand adulation?) is what make people great and mature.
+1...
The iMac isn't a bad computer but it's important to realize one salient fact.
The iMac is your ONLY solution for Macs $1200-2200. They are Apple's high volume computing line.
If you asked HP or Dell about their AIO they'd say that they serve a portion of their clientele that desire AIO form factor but would probably state their minitower desktops are their high volume.
You can view almost any product through the right lens and get the answer you want.
Agreed, this article is just doing its best to put Apple in the best possible light -- I mean, what do you expect from a website called "AppleInsider."
"The Oppenheimer analyst also used his report Tuesday to perform a side-by-side comparison of the new iMacs against all-in-one desktops from Dell and HP. "
But, when I open the weekly flyer from Staples, I see an HP tower with an Intel quad-core Core 2 Quad Q8200 CPU, a Blu-Ray drive, a 19 inches screen, a 500 GB hard drive and 4 GB of RAM for only $949 Canadian dollars (regular price is $1219).
iMacs are not competing with the most expensive computers on the market, but quad-core desktop computers that sell for much less.
The same Staples flyer quotes a price of $1699 and $2299 for 2 different models of HP Touchsmart all-in-one computers with Core 2 Duo CPUs and a Blu-Ray drive for the most expensive model.
I saw a comparison recently that compared processors between the iMac and a high end AIO and it even had a quad 2.33GHz in it and they gave the 2.66GHz dual core iMac the points. For certain tasks, the dual core will be faster but not in general.
Its been shown in general a faster dual core processor will have better performance than a slower quad core processor. Only under certain circumstances will the slower quad core have better performance.
There is also a laptop showing on Engadget that has a Core i7 in it so if they can put a Core i7 desktop chip in a laptop, Apple could have at least put Core 2 Quad in their iMac.
It looks as though Apple were more concerned with lowering the price than a major component update. Quad core will be coming to the iMac.
Not to mention in a few months, we get Grand Central. It will be used for OpenCL presumably but for software that isn't written to take advantage of OpenCL, it will be largely a worthless addition for the iMac.
In playing to your audience. I seriously doubt most of the people purchasing iMac will be concerned with Grand Central.
Either it is a mid-range tower replacement or it isn't. If it is then we are perfectly within our rights to compare it with PC towers and it falls far short in terms of value. If it's not a replacement then there is an important element missing in Apple's lineup.
In this comparison the term value can differ. Part of the value of the iMac is in having a the entire machine in one package. Their is no clearly defined way to equate that value to a general desktop.
But we do know that Apple is making more money from the iMac than Dell or HP are making from their desktop lines.
Yes I would call a success, the ability to sell 12 million machines and make more money than a competitor who sells 200 million.
90% of Apples' recent success is down to Vista and 10% down to Apple.
And remember that *success* is relative Apple will sell approx 12m machines in a market that overall worldwide will comprise approx 260m machines.
perspective...
I find the posts more negative and critical lately....I enjoy the humorous comments the most. I think the majority of the complaints are from the techies arguing over the minutia.
I would like to see a 30" top of the line iMac. A full size keyboard on a 10" MBA, a 15" MBA and a 17" MBA alongside the current 13" MBA and alongside the complete MB and MB line. A new 30" monitor and a DVR in AppleTV.
I own the first intel duo 20" iMac, the first intel iBook 2nd gen ATV and the first gen iPhone all with AppleCare. I upgrade the OS, iLife and iWork every time and only buy Apple SW and hardware. Apple serves me well and with a minimum of headaches, wires and looks good too. I would never consider a Windows or Microsoft product.
Any thoughts?
Be careful with the word "Techies" they will call you childish.
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.
If work is paying, then the answer is either MacBook Pro, or Mac Pro.
My workplace bought some (now old) 8-core Mac Pros for the lab, maxed out with RAM and storage. After using them for lab work, it's mighty difficult to return to my everyday XP ThinkPad laptops - waiting for Windows to startup, Outlook to load, PowerPoint to load/save, Windows to sleep, etc.
"Experiencing something better can make what you have feel like torture."
Apple's profit margins being twice the industry average (and sometimes more) is the direct indicator of the "Apple tax". The value of the Mac over a PC is a perceived one by many people. It's one of simple taste. The intangibles (thus the tax) are made possible by being different through both software and enclosures. Those that are sold by it will accept those perceptions that Apple sells (obviously) despite real-world costs. (i.e. iLife and OSX together are worth only $169 retail and are already figured into the price as Apple sees fit to price it, not the actual several hundred dollar difference between machines of comparable specs.)
The other arguments like "better parts", etc. are often fluff to convince themselves about the value of the purchase they bought. And everything else on the market is crap because they've accepted Apple as their lifestyle brand. Push Pepsi on any hardcore Coke drinker... same thing.
When the math doesn't add up and is dared to be brought up, the argument often gets redirected into what users "need". i.e. You only need the specs that conveniently match that of Apple products, being their bottom line of that circular debate.
My only particular beef with Apple are the huge, gaping holes in the lineup which are beyond excuse IMO... Except of course when Apple's profitability is the iron-clad defense rubbed into my face for wanting something not available in the gimped lineup. As if their profitability (thanks much to said tax and other non-computer products) is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted, thanks to the warped value-add model.
In any event, the gaping holes being:
- No 15" laptop under $2000.
- No 17" laptop under $2800.
- No desktop with upgradable graphics (or any real desktop at all, period) under $2500.
- and others.
You call this perspective? Perspective is seeing the fact that Windows XP has around 60% of the market. Mac OS X has around 9% of the market. Vista is competing with XP not Mac OS X.
Yes I would call a success, the ability to sell 12 million machines and make more money than a competitor who sells 200 million.
I'll say it again only slower....
12m out of 260m (and 12m is generous)
it doesn't matter what Apple do with their computers..... not enough people buy them for them to be vaguely relevant.
Take your point about Vista and XP but XP is still Windows.
I can't argue with you anymore than this, the randomness of your conclusions are mindblowing.
What competion with Apple HW?
This article is pretty disingenuous, you are not allowed to install/use OS/X on other manufactures hardware, more like monopoly.
Not that Apple hardware/software isn't nice, but the premise of this article is crap.
Cpt KLutz
The ridiculous profit margin is worn like a badge of honour by the mac heads. Do they not realise it is them fuelling it??
..speechless.
In any event, the gaping holes being:
- No 15" laptop under $2000.
- No 17" laptop under $2800.
You can get the 15" laptop under $2000 and the 17" laptop under $2800 if you're willing to buy clearance (new but last generation) Macs. I got my early 2008 2.5GHz 15" MacBook Pro for $1350 when Amazon was clearing them out right after the unibodies were introduced.
- No desktop with upgradable graphics (or any real desktop at all, period) under $2500.
I assume you mean with display. Otherwise the low-end Mac Pro is $2499, and clearance ones will also get under $2500, though not with display included.
If Apple weren't relevant why are so many people talking about it?
I'm not sure what's random about my conclusions they are in direct response to yours.
I'll say it again only slower....
12m out of 260m (and 12m is generous)
it doesn't matter what Apple do with their computers..... not enough people buy them for them to be vaguely relevant.
Take your point about Vista and XP but XP is still Windows.
I can't argue with you anymore than this, the randomness of your conclusions are mindblowing.
Is there another company whose most devout followers enjoy getting financially shafted so much.???
The ridiculous profit margin is worn like a badge of honour by the mac heads. Do they not realise it is them fuelling it??
..speechless.
90% of Apples' recent success is down to Vista and 10% down to Apple.
And remember that *success* is relative Apple will sell approx 12m machines in a market that overall worldwide will comprise approx 260m machines.
perspective...
Thank you for just proving my point. That even will all the millions of PC's sold compared to Apple, the PC makers can't seem to make enough revenue to support their model yet Apple is in great financial health given the current market conditions.
Well then maybe this isn't the site for you and you should stop visiting it. Find a site that reports in a way you agree with and enjoy yourself. Why make attacking comments? Your words won't change the report you just read. If you want to vent frustration to AppleInsider by all means do, but there is no need to involve the rest of us in it.
Well, there's nothing wrong about agreeing or disagreeing publicly in forums like this.
At the end of a day, it is in AppleInsider interest to attract as many readers as they can, and if it turns out that significant number of readers prefers unbiased articles, that is reality AI has to accept... or decrease it's readers' base.
Regarding this article, whatever the source is, it simply does not hold the ground. iMac is the only mid-level desktop option for Apple, and as such it competes with desktop PCs in general. AIO PCs are so insignificantly represented in PC market that even calling them niche would be overstatement of the century. Plus, HP Touchsmart is AIO desktop with touch screen and as such represents category of it's own; all the advertising materials we are receiving from HP resellers are orbiting around the fact that it is freakin' touch screen device.
Apple's profit margins being twice the industry average (and sometimes more) is the direct indicator of the "Apple tax".
Apple's higher margins largely come from Apple not playing in the low cost low margin market.
The other arguments like "better parts", etc. are often fluff to convince themselves about the value of the purchase they bought.
I think most everyone will agree a laptop body machined from one solid block of aluminum is a better part than a laptop body made from molded plastic snapped together.
When the math doesn't add up and is dared to be brought up, the argument often gets redirected into what users "need". i.e. You only need the specs that conveniently match that of Apple products, being their bottom line of that circular debate.
People want to simplify the debate around specs. Specs are not the only consideration and alone don't make a good computer. Every computer has to make some compromise one way or another, what makes for the best compromise is subjective.
My only particular beef with Apple are the huge, gaping holes in the lineup which are beyond excuse IMO... Except of course when Apple's profitability is the iron-clad defense rubbed into my face for wanting something not available in the gimped lineup. As if their profitability (thanks much to said tax and other non-computer products) is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted, thanks to the warped value-add model.
Profitability is the reason why Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft and everyone else are doing any of what they do. Profitability is the whole point.
Apple has offered a wider computer line in the past and it proved less profitable than Apple's currently limited line.
any thoughts?
are you independently wealthy?
Nope! just an everyday worker bee....but my time is worth $150 an hour and I don't want to be mucking about with a windows machine.... been up till 2am trying to "fix" windows machines too many times!
If you want to run OS X, and work with pictures, you want a good picture on screen. And one that does not change with time. That means today you should be using LED lighting because is more stable (less resyncing/calibration of your screen).
Second, you want a faster machine, and Apple has chosen to use dual core CPUs only. And this is at a time when they have shown the next version of the OS, due in few months, where one of the main features will be Grand Central, a rewrite of significant portions to make various tasks run in parallell.
The current iMac will not be able to take advantage of Grand Central as effectively as a Quad core.
So the message as I read the facts, is wait a while before you buy your next one, at least until Snow Leopard has become available.
What's your view?
peter