This thread provides some interesting perspective, as well as some humor. It's obvious that Apple will never get the iMac "right" by the tech crowd. Of course, a 6 year old could understand why when you tell them its not made for the tech crowd, but unlike a 6 year old, techie adults ignore you when you tell them the truth.
I'm as techy and as semi-professional as it gets, and yes I find the iMac to be a bit sluggish. And yet, its still faster than all of the Apple Laptops including the top of the line Pro, so its really all relative, with a bit of circular logic thrown in.
The iMac is and will continue to be the piece of sex that can be dropped on anyones desk and its all the computer they'll ever need.
If you're doing lots of encodes and re-encodes, and large file edits and saves, well your life sucks because you're going to need to spend more than the avg joe on RAM and disk space, and likely need a Mac Pro model in the end anyway.
I don't think the iMac is made for any particular 'crowd'. There are things to love and hate in any Mac, but I think most here are Apple fans. They are just voicing their likes and dislikes. Your 'truth' as you call is is your opinion just as the 'I Want' posts in here are just opinions. An important distinction to remember.
You're implying that the 'techies' are somehow less important than the 'don't cares', or the 'imac is art' groups. They all make up the same Apple fans and they are all Apple consumers.
This thread provides some interesting perspective, as well as some humor. It's obvious that Apple will never get the iMac "right" by the tech crowd. Of course, a 6 year old could understand why when you tell them its not made for the tech crowd, but unlike a 6 year old, techie adults ignore you when you tell them the truth.
I'm as techy and as semi-professional as it gets, and yes I find the iMac to be a bit sluggish. And yet, its still faster than all of the Apple Laptops including the top of the line Pro, so its really all relative, with a bit of circular logic thrown in.
The iMac is and will continue to be the piece of sex that can be dropped on anyones desk and its all the computer they'll ever need.
If you're doing lots of encodes and re-encodes, and large file edits and saves, well your life sucks because you're going to need to spend more than the avg joe on RAM and disk space, and likely need a Mac Pro model in the end anyway.
We know who the iMac is made for. However, the Mac Pro has gone up in price $1000 in the past half decade and despite what some Mac users may think, money doesn't grow on trees and a Mac isn't your only expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
I don't think the iMac is made for any particular 'crowd'. There are things to love and hate in any Mac, but I think most here are Apple fans. They are just voicing their likes and dislikes. Your 'truth' as you call is is your opinion just as the 'I Want' posts in here are just opinions. An important distinction to remember.
You're implying that the 'techies' are somehow less important than the 'don't cares', or the 'imac is art' groups. They all make up the same Apple fans and they are all Apple consumers.
Try to remember that
They're less important to Apple (despite being the main reason they survived long enough to make the current products.) They prefer substance, Apple prefers style.
No idea what are you talking about but both the Us and Australian Apple site + the store are working OK and have been for the last couple hours so no panic needed...
The US and Canadian stores were defintely down for much of last night.
I agree with Steve, Blu Ray is expensive and kinda useless on a computer.
First off, most programs still fit nicely on a DVD.
Second you would need a much larger then 24' display for blu ray to be useful, and for that you would need a TV, not an iMac.
Third making iMacs more expensive right now is not a very good move, the economy is not good enough to support a price increase right now.
Therefore if blu ray does come about it would have to be an option for the most expensive iMac in the family. Just my prediction.
Um... except that the Mac community is largely made of creative pros and many of them use their macs to professionally author video. Unless folks have been living under a rock the last few years, Blu Ray is a major distribution format for video.
Therefore, Blu Ray makes abundant sense for computers.
I can very easily see the C2D sticking around in iMacs, for one simple reason: Price.
For the first time in a long time, Apple has strong downward pressure on its price brackets. The way the PC market has addressed this for a long time is to simply repackage older motherboards in cheap, shiny cases with cheap monitors and price it to sell. Apple is now looking at a similar strategy. They already did it with their MacBook, though to be fair they swapped in the current motherboard when they ran out of old stock.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the C2D iMac is still a perfectly good machine for a great many people. Repositioned as a budget (for Apple) machine, it will not have to have the latest and greatest because nobody will be looking for that.
I think that what we're going to see is the bifurcation of the iMac line along the lines of the MacBook/MacBook Pro bifurcation earlier this year: The current 20" iMacs with the current (or cheaper) cases and the current displays will hold the ~$1k price range. The 24" iMacs will continue to occupy the prosumer-to-professional range, with current motherboards and 8-bit LED-lit monitors and optional Blu-Ray. There may even be a bigger iMac, although given that they support second monitors I tend to doubt that.
I expect that prices on C2Ds will plunge as the new i5 and i7 lines are widely adopted, so Apple should be able to price the machines fairly aggressively.
I expect that prices on C2Ds will plunge as the new i5 and i7 lines are widely adopted, so Apple should be able to price the machines fairly aggressively.
When you say 'aggressively priced' what do you mean? Earlier in your post you suggest that the 20" iMac would be around $1k. That's not aggressive pricing to me, unless you mean aggressively overpriced. i5 pc systems should come in around $750-850.
C2D iMacs just don't strike me as a good value at this time. Intel have moved on to the next micro-architecture and that's where I want to be. Especially at historical Apple premium prices.
When you say 'aggressively priced' what do you mean? Earlier in your post you suggest that the 20" iMac would be around $1k. That's not aggressive pricing to me, unless you mean aggressively overpriced. i5 pc systems should come in around $750-850.
C2D iMacs just don't strike me as a good value at this time. Intel have moved on to the next micro-architecture and that's where I want to be. Especially at historical Apple premium prices.
See there's the rub. The mini isn't really cheap. And no I don't want a cheap Mac anyway.
I don't mind paying a premium for Apple products and I have many. But I want value. I don't like paying a premium when I know the components are low end.
It wasn't that way when Apple initially switched to Intel. Apple started using core duo cpus and switched to core 2 duo cpus as soon as they were available. Apple didn't even bother with pentium, celeron and other Intel low end processors.
See there's the rub. The mini isn't really cheap. And no I don't want a cheap Mac anyway.
I don't mind paying a premium for Apple products and I have many. But I want value. I don't like paying a premium when I know the components are low end.
It wasn't that way when Apple initially switched to Intel. Apple started using core duo cpus and switched to core 2 duo cpus as soon as they were available. Apple didn't even bother with pentium, celeron and other Intel low end processors.
Macs aren't cheap for a lot of reasons. Expensive manufacturing technologies, expensive materials. The fact that they charge less for their programs and OS (MS Windows Ultimate is usually $300, office $500). But one big reason we don't usually talk about, is service. One reason why they have such good, often award winning service, is because they put big bucks into it. Where do those big bucks come from?
You're wrong about the power. An iMac can handle pretty much anything that an audio app can throw at it. As for video cards, neither audio nor video programs care much about that. If you're using a high end video program like Motion or other heavily GPU'd app, then you should also be able to afford a Mac Pro. The 4870 or the 285 cards are fine for that purpose, and we should be getting the new 5870 before too long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Macs aren't cheap for a lot of reasons. Expensive manufacturing technologies, expensive materials. The fact that they charge less for their programs and OS (MS Windows Ultimate is usually $300, office $500). But one big reason we don't usually talk about, is service. One reason why they have such good, often award winning service, is because they put big bucks into it. Where do those big bucks come from?
I think you hit on something there: Service. Like this...my wife's MB went belly up after I had applied the recommended 1.4 battery firmware update, which in short, rendered the logic board useless. The machine had just gone out of warranty, so the local Nepal dealer here recommended that I call Apple and talk to them. What it came down to was this: no one could tell if the firmware upgrade had ruined the logic board (9 beep sos) or it was something else tangentially. But after speaking with 2 reps bumped higher up on the food chain each time, Apple politely agreed to authorize a logic board replacement. In other words, they gave the customer the benefit of the doubt, and even though they did not legally have to, they did the repair for free. What other company on the planet would do this?!? So, in short, you have to factor in the service to the price of a computer from Apple. There is no way Sony would have helped me here
See there's the rub. The mini isn't really cheap. And no I don't want a cheap Mac anyway.
I don't mind paying a premium for Apple products and I have many. But I want value. I don't like paying a premium when I know the components are low end.
You hit the nail on the head. We pay a premium for a better computer, not a better looking case. It could be argued that this iMac has lost a little bit of value with each revision. When it was a G5, it was cutting edge. When it was one of the first core Machines, it was cutting edge. Then came the sealed ALU case and the thermal wall for laptop CPUs and its been falling further and further behind. Its a great machine if you're looking for an image or ease of use. If you're looking for a desktop, its a pretty terrible value compared to any quad core on the market. The entry level 20 and 24" are great machines for the average consumers they sell to. The last couple are competing in a market they're not well suited to.
Quote:
It wasn't that way when Apple initially switched to Intel. Apple started using core duo cpus and switched to core 2 duo cpus as soon as they were available. Apple didn't even bother with pentium, celeron and other Intel low end processors.
To be fair, many of us expected desktop and laptop chips to merge. Nobody expected TDPs and the gap between mobile and desktop CPUs to rise up this quickly again. When you're dealing in thin designs, heat is like the bogey man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Macs aren't cheap for a lot of reasons. Expensive manufacturing technologies, expensive materials. The fact that they charge less for their programs and OS (MS Windows Ultimate is usually $300, office $500). But one big reason we don't usually talk about, is service. One reason why they have such good, often award winning service, is because they put big bucks into it. Where do those big bucks come from?
That service isn't what it used to be. Now it pretty much relies on the underpaid kids who staff your nearest Apple store. A couple years ago, AppleCare would pay to have your iMac picked up express mail, at their expense, send it to their support center, and then have it waiting at your door a couple days later. Now, its your responsibility to drive to your nearest AppleStore at a time and date convenient for them, expenses for fuel and taking a day off of work are yours, you get to try to explain your conversation with that highly trained AppleCare expert to some college kid making $8/hr and after the work is done (much slower than the service center), you get take another couple hour drive to pick it up.
You hit the nail on the head. We pay a premium for a better computer, not a better looking case. It could be argued that this iMac has lost a little bit of value with each revision. When it was a G5, it was cutting edge. When it was one of the first core Machines, it was cutting edge. Then came the sealed ALU case and the thermal wall for laptop CPUs and its been falling further and further behind. Its a great machine if you're looking for an image or ease of use. If you're looking for a desktop, its a pretty terrible value compared to any quad core on the market. The entry level 20 and 24" are great machines for the average consumers they sell to. The last couple are competing in a market they're not well suited to.
The mistake you and others are making is that you don't do proper, or fair comparisons. You have to compare Apple's AIO's with other companies AIO's. Anything else is meaningless.
You have to compare category to category, or as they say, apples to apples, so to speak.
Since Apple doesn't compete in some markets, it's not fair to compare their products to those markets even though you want to.
You don't compare sports cars to sedans. You compare sports cars to sports cars, and sedans to sedans. If a company only makes sedans or sports cars, you don't do a cross comparison anyway.
I don't understand why some people think that's ok not to do it for other types of products, but that it's ok for computers. It's not.
Quote:
That service isn't what it used to be. Now it pretty much relies on the underpaid kids who staff your nearest Apple store. A couple years ago, AppleCare would pay to have your iMac picked up express mail, at their expense, send it to their support center, and then have it waiting at your door a couple days later. Now, its your responsibility to drive to your nearest AppleStore at a time and date convenient for them, expenses for fuel and taking a day off of work are yours, you get to try to explain your conversation with that highly trained AppleCare expert to some college kid making $8/hr and after the work is done (much slower than the service center), you get take another couple hour drive to pick it up.
Apple's service is just fine. You can make a statement otherwise if you want to think it bolsters your opinion, but it's still way up there on all surveys done anywhere. I'll take that over one opinion. You have no idea how they run their operation, what training they undergo, or what they pay their people, and please stop pretending that you do.
So there have been some interesting developments as of late. 2 Australian Forums have taken down a number of posts showing the specs of the soon to be released iMacs.
User 275907 formerly known as iNerd has been leaking info, reposted last night and now the other forums posts that he created have mysteriously disappeared as have the links in the above forum...
Summary of pertinent details
Summary of iNerd's predictions for the iMac:
26", refined to 25.5" LED backlit display
Up to 12Gb RAM, new CPU, likely to be Apple
first (Core i7 mobile)
Minor shape changes ? Slightly bigger then "minor" BUT not totally different
Up to 2Tb HDD
New mouse design, backlit keyboard
20" replaced with 21.5
Available BluRay
To be release on October 13th according to his now delete posts on aqua-soft.org
When you say 'aggressively priced' what do you mean?
Aggressively priced for Apple, of course. They're not out to compete with eMachines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
i5 pc systems should come in around $750-850.
If that includes the bundled 18.5" CrapTronic monitor, that's approximately what they'll be worth. Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
Aggressively priced for Apple, of course. They're not out to compete with eMachines.
If that includes the bundled 18.5" CrapTronic monitor, that's approximately what they'll be worth. Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
So there have been some interesting developments as of late. 2 Australian Forums have taken down a number of posts showing the specs of the soon to be released iMacs.
User 275907 formerly known as iNerd has been leaking info, reposted last night and now the other forums posts that he created have mysteriously disappeared as have the links in the above forum...
Summary of pertinent details
Summary of iNerd's predictions for the iMac:
26", refined to 25.5" LED backlit display
Up to 12Gb RAM, new CPU, likely to be Apple
first (Core i7 mobile)
Minor shape changes – Slightly bigger then "minor" BUT not totally different
Up to 2Tb HDD
New mouse design, backlit keyboard
20" replaced with 21.5
Available BluRay
To be release on October 13th according to his now delete posts on aqua-soft.org
Can't wait,
Dave
I wish all this would be true, I really, really do... but considering the history of iMac updates in the past 1.5 years this is almost too much to wish for. I would be happy with a quadcore, LED backlight and a decent GPU upgrade and if there's anything else on top of it... great!
Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
Hi. New here. Could you explain this a bit further? I haven't read this before (perhaps I haven't searched the forums enough).
I'm in the process of deciding what desktop to choose, and for the first time am looking at an iMac (I'm just waiting to see what their new model will have before picking between that or going with a PC, which has always been what I've had).
Hi. New here. Could you explain this a bit further? I haven't read this before (perhaps I haven't searched the forums enough).
I'm in the process of deciding what desktop to choose, and for the first time am looking at an iMac (I'm just waiting to see what their new model will have before picking between that or going with a PC, which has always been what I've had).
Many thanks.
He's referring to Grand Central Dispatch. Just scroll down about midway on the page to see the details. Essentially the Operating System itself takes steps to better utilize multiple cores by breaking up processing tasks among the cores so the work is more evenly distributed. Normally the person writing and compiling the software you use must take special steps to use parallel programing/multiple threads. Snow Leopard does this for you, even if the developer didn't code or compile the program for multiple cores.
The mistake you and others are making is that you don't do proper, or fair comparisons. You have to compare Apple's AIO's with other companies AIO's. Anything else is meaningless.
You have to compare category to category, or as they say, apples to apples, so to speak.
Since Apple doesn't compete in some markets, it's not fair to compare their products to those markets even though you want to.
You don't compare sports cars to sedans. You compare sports cars to sports cars, and sedans to sedans. If a company only makes sedans or sports cars, you don't do a cross comparison anyway.
I don't understand why some people think that's ok not to do it for other types of products, but that it's ok for computers. It's not.
Apple's service is just fine. You can make a statement otherwise if you want to think it bolsters your opinion, but it's still way up there on all surveys done anywhere. I'll take that over one opinion. You have no idea how they run their operation, what training they undergo, or what they pay their people, and please stop pretending that you do.
Do you ever get tired of taking Apple's position no matter what it is? They could offer only the $999 macbook for $5000, cut out all third party software, and require you to drive to Cupertino for service and they'd still be in the right with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph
If that includes the bundled 18.5" CrapTronic monitor, that's approximately what they'll be worth. Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
And ironically Apple really doesn't have much that can take real advantage of Snow Leopard. Might though by the time the APIs are integrated into software though...if we're lucky. Also, the 20" iMac also has the craptonic TN display.
.... Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
That's not true IIRC. Windows has thread pooling. I don't know if they Windows solution is as good as GCD but it exists. In fact most of the programmers at Ars down play the significance of GCD for this reason. They state that thread pooling has existed with Windows for some time and it helps some but that the major challenge is figuring out how and when to break up your code into threads. They're pretty unimpressed with GCD for the most part.
Comments
This thread provides some interesting perspective, as well as some humor. It's obvious that Apple will never get the iMac "right" by the tech crowd. Of course, a 6 year old could understand why when you tell them its not made for the tech crowd, but unlike a 6 year old, techie adults ignore you when you tell them the truth.
I'm as techy and as semi-professional as it gets, and yes I find the iMac to be a bit sluggish. And yet, its still faster than all of the Apple Laptops including the top of the line Pro, so its really all relative, with a bit of circular logic thrown in.
The iMac is and will continue to be the piece of sex that can be dropped on anyones desk and its all the computer they'll ever need.
If you're doing lots of encodes and re-encodes, and large file edits and saves, well your life sucks because you're going to need to spend more than the avg joe on RAM and disk space, and likely need a Mac Pro model in the end anyway.
I don't think the iMac is made for any particular 'crowd'. There are things to love and hate in any Mac, but I think most here are Apple fans. They are just voicing their likes and dislikes. Your 'truth' as you call is is your opinion just as the 'I Want' posts in here are just opinions. An important distinction to remember.
You're implying that the 'techies' are somehow less important than the 'don't cares', or the 'imac is art' groups. They all make up the same Apple fans and they are all Apple consumers.
Try to remember that
This thread provides some interesting perspective, as well as some humor. It's obvious that Apple will never get the iMac "right" by the tech crowd. Of course, a 6 year old could understand why when you tell them its not made for the tech crowd, but unlike a 6 year old, techie adults ignore you when you tell them the truth.
I'm as techy and as semi-professional as it gets, and yes I find the iMac to be a bit sluggish. And yet, its still faster than all of the Apple Laptops including the top of the line Pro, so its really all relative, with a bit of circular logic thrown in.
The iMac is and will continue to be the piece of sex that can be dropped on anyones desk and its all the computer they'll ever need.
If you're doing lots of encodes and re-encodes, and large file edits and saves, well your life sucks because you're going to need to spend more than the avg joe on RAM and disk space, and likely need a Mac Pro model in the end anyway.
We know who the iMac is made for. However, the Mac Pro has gone up in price $1000 in the past half decade and despite what some Mac users may think, money doesn't grow on trees and a Mac isn't your only expensive.
I don't think the iMac is made for any particular 'crowd'. There are things to love and hate in any Mac, but I think most here are Apple fans. They are just voicing their likes and dislikes. Your 'truth' as you call is is your opinion just as the 'I Want' posts in here are just opinions. An important distinction to remember.
You're implying that the 'techies' are somehow less important than the 'don't cares', or the 'imac is art' groups. They all make up the same Apple fans and they are all Apple consumers.
Try to remember that
They're less important to Apple (despite being the main reason they survived long enough to make the current products.) They prefer substance, Apple prefers style.
No idea what are you talking about but both the Us and Australian Apple site + the store are working OK and have been for the last couple hours so no panic needed...
The US and Canadian stores were defintely down for much of last night.
Apparently to add the all new Bento 3?
I agree with Steve, Blu Ray is expensive and kinda useless on a computer.
First off, most programs still fit nicely on a DVD.
Second you would need a much larger then 24' display for blu ray to be useful, and for that you would need a TV, not an iMac.
Third making iMacs more expensive right now is not a very good move, the economy is not good enough to support a price increase right now.
Therefore if blu ray does come about it would have to be an option for the most expensive iMac in the family. Just my prediction.
Um... except that the Mac community is largely made of creative pros and many of them use their macs to professionally author video. Unless folks have been living under a rock the last few years, Blu Ray is a major distribution format for video.
Therefore, Blu Ray makes abundant sense for computers.
For the first time in a long time, Apple has strong downward pressure on its price brackets. The way the PC market has addressed this for a long time is to simply repackage older motherboards in cheap, shiny cases with cheap monitors and price it to sell. Apple is now looking at a similar strategy. They already did it with their MacBook, though to be fair they swapped in the current motherboard when they ran out of old stock.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the C2D iMac is still a perfectly good machine for a great many people. Repositioned as a budget (for Apple) machine, it will not have to have the latest and greatest because nobody will be looking for that.
I think that what we're going to see is the bifurcation of the iMac line along the lines of the MacBook/MacBook Pro bifurcation earlier this year: The current 20" iMacs with the current (or cheaper) cases and the current displays will hold the ~$1k price range. The 24" iMacs will continue to occupy the prosumer-to-professional range, with current motherboards and 8-bit LED-lit monitors and optional Blu-Ray. There may even be a bigger iMac, although given that they support second monitors I tend to doubt that.
I expect that prices on C2Ds will plunge as the new i5 and i7 lines are widely adopted, so Apple should be able to price the machines fairly aggressively.
I expect that prices on C2Ds will plunge as the new i5 and i7 lines are widely adopted, so Apple should be able to price the machines fairly aggressively.
When you say 'aggressively priced' what do you mean? Earlier in your post you suggest that the 20" iMac would be around $1k. That's not aggressive pricing to me, unless you mean aggressively overpriced. i5 pc systems should come in around $750-850.
C2D iMacs just don't strike me as a good value at this time. Intel have moved on to the next micro-architecture and that's where I want to be. Especially at historical Apple premium prices.
When you say 'aggressively priced' what do you mean? Earlier in your post you suggest that the 20" iMac would be around $1k. That's not aggressive pricing to me, unless you mean aggressively overpriced. i5 pc systems should come in around $750-850.
C2D iMacs just don't strike me as a good value at this time. Intel have moved on to the next micro-architecture and that's where I want to be. Especially at historical Apple premium prices.
Key words: "to me"
If you want a cheap Mac, there's the Mac Mini.
Key words: "to me"
If you want a cheap Mac, there's the Mac Mini.
See there's the rub. The mini isn't really cheap. And no I don't want a cheap Mac anyway.
I don't mind paying a premium for Apple products and I have many. But I want value. I don't like paying a premium when I know the components are low end.
It wasn't that way when Apple initially switched to Intel. Apple started using core duo cpus and switched to core 2 duo cpus as soon as they were available. Apple didn't even bother with pentium, celeron and other Intel low end processors.
See there's the rub. The mini isn't really cheap. And no I don't want a cheap Mac anyway.
I don't mind paying a premium for Apple products and I have many. But I want value. I don't like paying a premium when I know the components are low end.
It wasn't that way when Apple initially switched to Intel. Apple started using core duo cpus and switched to core 2 duo cpus as soon as they were available. Apple didn't even bother with pentium, celeron and other Intel low end processors.
Macs aren't cheap for a lot of reasons. Expensive manufacturing technologies, expensive materials. The fact that they charge less for their programs and OS (MS Windows Ultimate is usually $300, office $500). But one big reason we don't usually talk about, is service. One reason why they have such good, often award winning service, is because they put big bucks into it. Where do those big bucks come from?
You're wrong about the power. An iMac can handle pretty much anything that an audio app can throw at it. As for video cards, neither audio nor video programs care much about that. If you're using a high end video program like Motion or other heavily GPU'd app, then you should also be able to afford a Mac Pro. The 4870 or the 285 cards are fine for that purpose, and we should be getting the new 5870 before too long.
Macs aren't cheap for a lot of reasons. Expensive manufacturing technologies, expensive materials. The fact that they charge less for their programs and OS (MS Windows Ultimate is usually $300, office $500). But one big reason we don't usually talk about, is service. One reason why they have such good, often award winning service, is because they put big bucks into it. Where do those big bucks come from?
I think you hit on something there: Service. Like this...my wife's MB went belly up after I had applied the recommended 1.4 battery firmware update, which in short, rendered the logic board useless. The machine had just gone out of warranty, so the local Nepal dealer here recommended that I call Apple and talk to them. What it came down to was this: no one could tell if the firmware upgrade had ruined the logic board (9 beep sos) or it was something else tangentially. But after speaking with 2 reps bumped higher up on the food chain each time, Apple politely agreed to authorize a logic board replacement. In other words, they gave the customer the benefit of the doubt, and even though they did not legally have to, they did the repair for free. What other company on the planet would do this?!? So, in short, you have to factor in the service to the price of a computer from Apple. There is no way Sony would have helped me here
See there's the rub. The mini isn't really cheap. And no I don't want a cheap Mac anyway.
I don't mind paying a premium for Apple products and I have many. But I want value. I don't like paying a premium when I know the components are low end.
You hit the nail on the head. We pay a premium for a better computer, not a better looking case. It could be argued that this iMac has lost a little bit of value with each revision. When it was a G5, it was cutting edge. When it was one of the first core Machines, it was cutting edge. Then came the sealed ALU case and the thermal wall for laptop CPUs and its been falling further and further behind. Its a great machine if you're looking for an image or ease of use. If you're looking for a desktop, its a pretty terrible value compared to any quad core on the market. The entry level 20 and 24" are great machines for the average consumers they sell to. The last couple are competing in a market they're not well suited to.
It wasn't that way when Apple initially switched to Intel. Apple started using core duo cpus and switched to core 2 duo cpus as soon as they were available. Apple didn't even bother with pentium, celeron and other Intel low end processors.
To be fair, many of us expected desktop and laptop chips to merge. Nobody expected TDPs and the gap between mobile and desktop CPUs to rise up this quickly again. When you're dealing in thin designs, heat is like the bogey man.
Macs aren't cheap for a lot of reasons. Expensive manufacturing technologies, expensive materials. The fact that they charge less for their programs and OS (MS Windows Ultimate is usually $300, office $500). But one big reason we don't usually talk about, is service. One reason why they have such good, often award winning service, is because they put big bucks into it. Where do those big bucks come from?
That service isn't what it used to be. Now it pretty much relies on the underpaid kids who staff your nearest Apple store. A couple years ago, AppleCare would pay to have your iMac picked up express mail, at their expense, send it to their support center, and then have it waiting at your door a couple days later. Now, its your responsibility to drive to your nearest AppleStore at a time and date convenient for them, expenses for fuel and taking a day off of work are yours, you get to try to explain your conversation with that highly trained AppleCare expert to some college kid making $8/hr and after the work is done (much slower than the service center), you get take another couple hour drive to pick it up.
You hit the nail on the head. We pay a premium for a better computer, not a better looking case. It could be argued that this iMac has lost a little bit of value with each revision. When it was a G5, it was cutting edge. When it was one of the first core Machines, it was cutting edge. Then came the sealed ALU case and the thermal wall for laptop CPUs and its been falling further and further behind. Its a great machine if you're looking for an image or ease of use. If you're looking for a desktop, its a pretty terrible value compared to any quad core on the market. The entry level 20 and 24" are great machines for the average consumers they sell to. The last couple are competing in a market they're not well suited to.
The mistake you and others are making is that you don't do proper, or fair comparisons. You have to compare Apple's AIO's with other companies AIO's. Anything else is meaningless.
You have to compare category to category, or as they say, apples to apples, so to speak.
Since Apple doesn't compete in some markets, it's not fair to compare their products to those markets even though you want to.
You don't compare sports cars to sedans. You compare sports cars to sports cars, and sedans to sedans. If a company only makes sedans or sports cars, you don't do a cross comparison anyway.
I don't understand why some people think that's ok not to do it for other types of products, but that it's ok for computers. It's not.
That service isn't what it used to be. Now it pretty much relies on the underpaid kids who staff your nearest Apple store. A couple years ago, AppleCare would pay to have your iMac picked up express mail, at their expense, send it to their support center, and then have it waiting at your door a couple days later. Now, its your responsibility to drive to your nearest AppleStore at a time and date convenient for them, expenses for fuel and taking a day off of work are yours, you get to try to explain your conversation with that highly trained AppleCare expert to some college kid making $8/hr and after the work is done (much slower than the service center), you get take another couple hour drive to pick it up.
Apple's service is just fine. You can make a statement otherwise if you want to think it bolsters your opinion, but it's still way up there on all surveys done anywhere. I'll take that over one opinion. You have no idea how they run their operation, what training they undergo, or what they pay their people, and please stop pretending that you do.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au...eplies.cfm?t=1275768
User 275907 formerly known as iNerd has been leaking info, reposted last night and now the other forums posts that he created have mysteriously disappeared as have the links in the above forum...
Summary of pertinent details
Summary of iNerd's predictions for the iMac:
26", refined to 25.5" LED backlit display
Up to 12Gb RAM, new CPU, likely to be Apple
first (Core i7 mobile)
Minor shape changes ? Slightly bigger then "minor" BUT not totally different
Up to 2Tb HDD
New mouse design, backlit keyboard
20" replaced with 21.5
Available BluRay
To be release on October 13th according to his now delete posts on aqua-soft.org
Can't wait,
Dave
When you say 'aggressively priced' what do you mean?
Aggressively priced for Apple, of course. They're not out to compete with eMachines.
i5 pc systems should come in around $750-850.
If that includes the bundled 18.5" CrapTronic monitor, that's approximately what they'll be worth. Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
Aggressively priced for Apple, of course. They're not out to compete with eMachines.
If that includes the bundled 18.5" CrapTronic monitor, that's approximately what they'll be worth. Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
Those are both proper points.
So there have been some interesting developments as of late. 2 Australian Forums have taken down a number of posts showing the specs of the soon to be released iMacs.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au...eplies.cfm?t=1275768
User 275907 formerly known as iNerd has been leaking info, reposted last night and now the other forums posts that he created have mysteriously disappeared as have the links in the above forum...
Summary of pertinent details
Summary of iNerd's predictions for the iMac:
26", refined to 25.5" LED backlit display
Up to 12Gb RAM, new CPU, likely to be Apple
first (Core i7 mobile)
Minor shape changes – Slightly bigger then "minor" BUT not totally different
Up to 2Tb HDD
New mouse design, backlit keyboard
20" replaced with 21.5
Available BluRay
To be release on October 13th according to his now delete posts on aqua-soft.org
Can't wait,
Dave
I wish all this would be true, I really, really do... but considering the history of iMac updates in the past 1.5 years this is almost too much to wish for. I would be happy with a quadcore, LED backlight and a decent GPU upgrade and if there's anything else on top of it... great!
Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
Hi. New here. Could you explain this a bit further? I haven't read this before (perhaps I haven't searched the forums enough).
I'm in the process of deciding what desktop to choose, and for the first time am looking at an iMac (I'm just waiting to see what their new model will have before picking between that or going with a PC, which has always been what I've had).
Many thanks.
Hi. New here. Could you explain this a bit further? I haven't read this before (perhaps I haven't searched the forums enough).
I'm in the process of deciding what desktop to choose, and for the first time am looking at an iMac (I'm just waiting to see what their new model will have before picking between that or going with a PC, which has always been what I've had).
Many thanks.
He's referring to Grand Central Dispatch. Just scroll down about midway on the page to see the details. Essentially the Operating System itself takes steps to better utilize multiple cores by breaking up processing tasks among the cores so the work is more evenly distributed. Normally the person writing and compiling the software you use must take special steps to use parallel programing/multiple threads. Snow Leopard does this for you, even if the developer didn't code or compile the program for multiple cores.
The mistake you and others are making is that you don't do proper, or fair comparisons. You have to compare Apple's AIO's with other companies AIO's. Anything else is meaningless.
You have to compare category to category, or as they say, apples to apples, so to speak.
Since Apple doesn't compete in some markets, it's not fair to compare their products to those markets even though you want to.
You don't compare sports cars to sedans. You compare sports cars to sports cars, and sedans to sedans. If a company only makes sedans or sports cars, you don't do a cross comparison anyway.
I don't understand why some people think that's ok not to do it for other types of products, but that it's ok for computers. It's not.
Apple's service is just fine. You can make a statement otherwise if you want to think it bolsters your opinion, but it's still way up there on all surveys done anywhere. I'll take that over one opinion. You have no idea how they run their operation, what training they undergo, or what they pay their people, and please stop pretending that you do.
Do you ever get tired of taking Apple's position no matter what it is? They could offer only the $999 macbook for $5000, cut out all third party software, and require you to drive to Cupertino for service and they'd still be in the right with you.
If that includes the bundled 18.5" CrapTronic monitor, that's approximately what they'll be worth. Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
And ironically Apple really doesn't have much that can take real advantage of Snow Leopard. Might though by the time the APIs are integrated into software though...if we're lucky. Also, the 20" iMac also has the craptonic TN display.
.... Windows applications have no elegant way to take advantage of a quad core architecture, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. Snow Leopard, of course, does.
That's not true IIRC. Windows has thread pooling. I don't know if they Windows solution is as good as GCD but it exists. In fact most of the programmers at Ars down play the significance of GCD for this reason. They state that thread pooling has existed with Windows for some time and it helps some but that the major challenge is figuring out how and when to break up your code into threads. They're pretty unimpressed with GCD for the most part.