I wonder if they will bring out a imac/tv hybrid? 42" imac would be great to combine as a tv.
They would need a different user interface to have a HTPC make sense. There are people that use HTPCs, more power to them, but I don't think it's an idea ready to hit prime time. iMacs are overkill for a video playback device anyway.
Something must be on the way because Apple closed above 600 dollars a share today for the first time in several weeks.
That just means that people are betting on something being on the way. Speculation happens all the time, and it has been known to crash post announcements. It's pretty typical for the analysts to hype it up, sell, it goes back down, and they can buy back in. This is pretty common. As long as they aren't lying on fundamentals, they're basically safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga
Inventory management and back-to-school are 'not nothing', but I'd look on the other side of the equation to see when things are going to happen: when the chips are available, are there enough panels, can the graphic engine drive the humongous higher density display, and how quickly can a million of them be made available to a hungry world, which includes me. Although it's quite true that in the past supply dry-up reports have trickled in (though 'trickled in' is probably not the best term to describe 'drying up') for months before an update, I'm still looking for an announcement in the week or two before the July 24 earnings. Disclaimer: I know nothing.
It's a dubious claim to say that the imac must contain a higher resolution display. It could happen. It's just not a guarantee of any kind. Stock always gets hyped before earnings announcements, and the idevices are likely to carry this one again. It's been a little weak on Mac releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It wouldn't work unless it was very high resolution and even then, it wouldn't be a retina display at normal computer distances. It also looks ridiculous:
I think it will be 27" for the foreseeable future. It would be good if they could make the 27" more affordable too. There's only $200 between the $1499 21.5" and $1699 27" (same spec otherwise) and there is $300 between the entry 21.5" and $1499 model. It should follow that they could put the entry spec into a $1399 27".
Cutting the optical drive would bring the 27" model down by another $100 so the entry 27" can be $1299. Given that the entry 21.5" now is $1199, they might as well just drop the 21.5" model altogether and that way they can save money by shipping the same display in every model.
Marvin cutting the optical drive isn't a guarantee of anything. Stop drinking their kool-aid. They could hit that price point either way if they wish to do so.
Marvin cutting the optical drive isn't a guarantee of anything. Stop drinking their kool-aid. They could hit that price point either way if they wish to do so.
They could give them away for free 'if they wish to do so' too but the kool-aid I drink is one that makes it clear there is a relationship between what parts cost to buy and fit and what Apple determines they need to be marked up by, which results in the final price.
You may very well buy an internal optical drive for $20 but for Apple to put one into the iMac, they have to design the chassis to accommodate the drive and have a part of the production line for the drives to be fitted, wired up and tested.
Without the drive, they don't have to machine the space, order the parts, nor have someone fit and test those parts, nor deal with warranty repairs on failed parts, nor support issues relating to the parts. The savings are far more than the cost of the bare drive itself.
They most certainly couldn't drop the price by $100 without taking a large hit to their profit margins, which is what you suggest. Their average margins are 25% so a $1199 iMac makes $299 profit (minus delivery, which is free). If they just drop $100, that comes straight out of the profits and they still have to maintain the production line to accommodate the design.
27" IPS panels aren't cheap y'know. Dell sells their 27" display for $780. To add a quad-core CPU + GPU + 4GB RAM + 500GB HDD + iSight + wireless KB + Mouse and end up with $1299, you can't just lop off $100 without a strategy for making it work.
One part of the strategy is where people are encouraged to buy software digitally and Apple makes their 30% on Mac App Store sales.
They could give them away for free 'if they wish to do so' too but the kool-aid I drink is one that makes it clear there is a relationship between what parts cost to buy and fit and what Apple determines they need to be marked up by, which results in the final price.
You may very well buy an internal optical drive for $20 but for Apple to put one into the iMac, they have to design the chassis to accommodate the drive and have a part of the production line for the drives to be fitted, wired up and tested.
Without the drive, they don't have to machine the space, order the parts, nor have someone fit and test those parts, nor deal with warranty repairs on failed parts, nor support issues relating to the parts. The savings are far more than the cost of the bare drive itself.
They most certainly couldn't drop the price by $100 without taking a large hit to their profit margins, which is what you suggest. Their average margins are 25% so a $1199 iMac makes $299 profit (minus delivery, which is free). If they just drop $100, that comes straight out of the profits and they still have to maintain the production line to accommodate the design.
27" IPS panels aren't cheap y'know. Dell sells their 27" display for $780. To add a quad-core CPU + GPU + 4GB RAM + 500GB HDD + iSight + wireless KB + Mouse and end up with $1299, you can't just lop off $100 without a strategy for making it work.
One part of the strategy is where people are encouraged to buy software digitally and Apple makes their 30% on Mac App Store sales.
I never suggested 27" panels were cheap. The cheap ones are 1080 panels, although the Dell and others started higher, meaning those panels most likely dropped off in price at some point given the number of manufacturers and oems that brought their pricing down by several hundred. I am aware of the extra logistics in implementing such a device, although I'm not sure where you got that specific margin. The problem is that you're looking with what they did on the mini combined with their marketing there when the mini has still started lower in the past. As for Apple or any other company, costs are a factor, but they don't determine the end price. If Apple wants to, they can raise the price by $500. what would matter there is if the price increase ends with a net gain after other things such as offsets in volume are factored in. It's not necessarily a goal to sell as chap as possible. I'm still not convinced that the optical drive alone would drop it by that much unless they're holding back slightly on other components to support this. They do a lot of weird things. Anyway you're way too focused on an isolated incident. You should also bear in mind that 21.5" panels are not even remotely expensive relative to something like 27". You can find $100 displays at that size and resolution. Retail price tends to go up exponentially as you go up in size unless you look at A-/B grade panel displays.
I am aware of the extra logistics in implementing such a device, although I'm not sure where you got that specific margin.
Two places: when the Mini lost the optical drive, the component prices remained the same and the price dropped by $100. If you configure a Mac Pro with a second optical drive, Apple charges you $100. I don't know why you aren't convinced that removing the optical drive won't drop the price by that much when they charge that much to put one in and I don't really know what point you are making. I'm saying that they could drop the 21.5" model with a redesign and go 27" across the lineup and dropping the optical will help reach the entry price point.
I think they should too, spending $1200 to get a machine with a 21.5" display isn't very good value but $1300 to get a 27" display is.
I think they should too, spending $1200 to get a machine with a 21.5" display isn't very good value but $1300 to get a 27" display is.
I definitely agree with you there. Display pricing has fallen considerably since their last major design refresh. Their future designs could be influenced greatly by whether they plan on implementing considerably higher resolution panels in the imacs within the near future, although I don't know if they could really cram the innards of the top configurations behind a smaller panel that puts out more heat.
I definitely agree with you there. Display pricing has fallen considerably since their last major design refresh. Their future designs could be influenced greatly by whether they plan on implementing considerably higher resolution panels in the imacs within the near future, although I don't know if they could really cram the innards of the top configurations behind a smaller panel that puts out more heat.
I'm hoping for an increase in number of iMac models and an increase in the display size range. Maybe something like 20", 24" and 32" (ultra widescreen). Hoping.
I'm hoping for an increase in number of iMac models and an increase in the display size range. Maybe something like 20", 24" and 32" (ultra widescreen). Hoping.
I guess that could happen, but I don't see desktop users going much larger with current usage patterns. Think of it this way. With CRTs, if you needed screen real estate, you went for a 21". They were available for many years. They are very similar in height to the current 24" displays. While the diametric measurements many have increased, most of it has been driven by wider displays. 30" displays have become way less common, replaced by widening the 25.5" form factor to 16:9 and marketing it as 27". I don't see them going much beyond this in mainstream use. It just becomes larger for the sake of larger. Personally I hate that the display size is coupled to the rest of the hardware. Apple pushed this, but I don't personally find it to be ideal. It's beneficial to Apple when it comes to structuring their price points, but I dislike it, especially as I'm not a fan of Apple's display designs (which are not just dependent on panel number/brand). There are many points of contention that come up there. I need a certain amount of drawing freedom. Wacom's QC and service suck so I won't touch the cintiq line. I'm using the second largest (labeled large) intuos as the oversized one has issues of its own. Getting close to 1:1 mapping means using a portion of the display, so the really huge displays become kind of pointless. Given that it's the closest thing to a mid range desktop, the imac sees some use by people who would like to game on it. The gpu relative to display size is a bit of a squeeze there if it's anything demanding. The same thing could be said if they're dealing with animation programs.
The point I wished to make was that coupling the rest of the machine with an ever increasing display size isn't necessarily ideal given the limitations of consumer grade technology. It has worked up to this point as they're able to get a high markup by packaging upgrades together when you go up a tier.
I would like to see the iMac match the thunderbolt display. I am looking at getting an iMac with 2 Thunderbolt displays attached to it for my business and having the iMac with that chin, and the TB Displays w/o it just doesn't look right.
I am ready to buy, just waiting on Apple, as I am sure a lot of people are.
True, but if they drop the optical drive in favor of an SSD, the price decrease won't likely happen. (At least that's what I'm hoping they're planning)
True, but if they drop the optical drive in favor of an SSD, the price decrease won't likely happen. (At least that's what I'm hoping they're planning)
From the sounds of it, any update this year will just be an incremental update, mostly a switch to Ivy Bridge, mainly offering some speed improvements, cooler operation, USB 3, maybe a more powerful graphics chip along with that. If they do finally remove the optical drive and going SSD-only, that is more in line with a major update that Apple people say will be offered next year, the hint is that it's a major rethink of the product.
This whole discussion has made me wonder, why is there a 27-inch display to begin with? If the display were more resolute, it might not be necessary to have such a big one. That is, suppose you could do the same side-by-side comparison of your reference document, but without such a large screen. It would be better, right? I LOVED the clip that someone put up, of the 42-inch screen in the cubicle. That was a good one!
In fact, a not-a-bad-way to proceed would be to release the smaller iMac with a retina, and then catch up with the bigger retina panel later. However, even though I went out on a limb and said that Apple will be announcing new iMacs this week or next, with immediate availability, I do *not think* there will be a retina option in this iMac's "processor bump". In other words, retina's appearance will be coordinated across the 27 inch products, and maybe they will even be the same height off the desktop!
This whole discussion has made me wonder, why is there a 27-inch display to begin with? If the display were more resolute, it might not be necessary to have such a big one. That is, suppose you could do the same side-by-side comparison of your reference document, but without such a large screen. It would be better, right? I LOVED the clip that someone put up, of the 42-inch screen in the cubicle. That was a good one!
In fact, a not-a-bad-way to proceed would be to release the smaller iMac with a retina, and then catch up with the bigger retina panel later. However, even though I went out on a limb and said that Apple will be announcing new iMacs this week or next, with immediate availability, I do *not think* there will be a retina option in this iMac's "processor bump". In other words, retina's appearance will be coordinated across the 27 inch products, and maybe they will even be the same height off the desktop!
I can see that argument, some needs for a 27" diminish with retina.
Retina, as it is, generally doesn't necessarily show more information, its main intent is better detail. It doesn't show more words unless you deviate from the Retina-optimized resolution.
A 27" monitor can't show more than two letter sized portrait pages at the same time at 1:1 scale.
That said, if Apple offered a 21" Retina and a 27" non-retina, I might go for the smaller, retina model.
There might be something to having more surface area for cooling though, the performance offered on the 21" model is a couple steps down from what they offer on the 27".
This whole discussion has made me wonder, why is there a 27-inch display to begin with?
I think it was to help get the price down on the Cinema screen. The 30" Cinema display used to cost $3299 and dropped to $1799 in 2010. When it was discontinued, the 27" Cinema display came in at $999. They use the same panel in the Cinema display as the iMac:
This means they can order the panels in large quantities and get discounts from the volume. Despite Apple having much higher build quality than Dell, they managed to undercut their price when it launched. The Dell is cheaper now by $200 with the same panel but the Cinema screen has a webcam, mic and speakers inside as well as FW800 and Gig-E and a metal chassis.
If they make the entire lineup 27", they only have to order a single batch of panels for everything. I personally think 24" at 2560 x 1440 across the lineup would be suitable and would drop the price considerably but the price points they hit with the 27" aren't too bad as it is and they will continue to drop so they'd be as well sticking to it. 27" also offers a significant value proposition vs PCs. If a PC bundle is selling at $1249 with a 24":
I think it was to help get the price down on the Cinema screen. The 30" Cinema display used to cost $3299 and dropped to $1799 in 2010. When it was discontinued, the 27" Cinema display came in at $999. They use the same panel in the Cinema display as the iMac:
This means they can order the panels in large quantities and get discounts from the volume. Despite Apple having much higher build quality than Dell, they managed to undercut their price when it launched. The Dell is cheaper now by $200 with the same panel but the Cinema screen has a webcam, mic and speakers inside as well as FW800 and Gig-E and a metal chassis.
If they make the entire lineup 27", they only have to order a single batch of panels for everything. I personally think 24" at 2560 x 1440 across the lineup would be suitable and would drop the price considerably but the price points they hit with the 27" aren't too bad as it is and they will continue to drop so they'd be as well sticking to it. 27" also offers a significant value proposition vs PCs. If a PC bundle is selling at $1249 with a 24":
Marvin the "same panel" thing is overstated. There are variations within a basic panel design and the implementation beyond that point. It would require closer comparison to see which one is superior. Dell is actually quite favored as a budget solution. If you're going to pay more and do not require the docking capacity of the TB display, NEC's may be a better option. Their warranties are longer (4 years standard) and the PA displays have 48 hour replacements. Apple may be better in terms of what they cover under warranty. I'm not sure, but most display manufacturers can be annoying to deal with on warranty issues unless the thing is actually bricked. The cinema has also been made into more of a docking station. Regarding 24" displays, I wish those picked up more resolution a long time ago. It's a very nice size.
iMac's design hasn't changed on the outside, its internal components have been completely revamped from those of the previous model. As it upgraded its MacBook Pro laptops earlier this year, Apple has introduced to the iMac Intel's second-generation Core CPU family (formerly code-named Sandy Bridge). It has also added AMD's latest generation of graphics processor, the Radeon HD 6000-series. iPhone users, and those who love them, will appreciate that Apple has brought FaceTime support to the new iMac, which allows for cross-device video chatting over the Internet.
Comments
They would need a different user interface to have a HTPC make sense. There are people that use HTPCs, more power to them, but I don't think it's an idea ready to hit prime time. iMacs are overkill for a video playback device anyway.
I want my new iMac!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Something must be on the way because Apple closed above 600 dollars a share today for the first time in several weeks.
That just means that people are betting on something being on the way. Speculation happens all the time, and it has been known to crash post announcements. It's pretty typical for the analysts to hype it up, sell, it goes back down, and they can buy back in. This is pretty common. As long as they aren't lying on fundamentals, they're basically safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga
Inventory management and back-to-school are 'not nothing', but I'd look on the other side of the equation to see when things are going to happen: when the chips are available, are there enough panels, can the graphic engine drive the humongous higher density display, and how quickly can a million of them be made available to a hungry world, which includes me. Although it's quite true that in the past supply dry-up reports have trickled in (though 'trickled in' is probably not the best term to describe 'drying up') for months before an update, I'm still looking for an announcement in the week or two before the July 24 earnings. Disclaimer: I know nothing.
It's a dubious claim to say that the imac must contain a higher resolution display. It could happen. It's just not a guarantee of any kind. Stock always gets hyped before earnings announcements, and the idevices are likely to carry this one again. It's been a little weak on Mac releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It wouldn't work unless it was very high resolution and even then, it wouldn't be a retina display at normal computer distances. It also looks ridiculous:
I think it will be 27" for the foreseeable future. It would be good if they could make the 27" more affordable too. There's only $200 between the $1499 21.5" and $1699 27" (same spec otherwise) and there is $300 between the entry 21.5" and $1499 model. It should follow that they could put the entry spec into a $1399 27".
Cutting the optical drive would bring the 27" model down by another $100 so the entry 27" can be $1299. Given that the entry 21.5" now is $1199, they might as well just drop the 21.5" model altogether and that way they can save money by shipping the same display in every model.
Marvin cutting the optical drive isn't a guarantee of anything. Stop drinking their kool-aid. They could hit that price point either way if they wish to do so.
They could give them away for free 'if they wish to do so' too but the kool-aid I drink is one that makes it clear there is a relationship between what parts cost to buy and fit and what Apple determines they need to be marked up by, which results in the final price.
You may very well buy an internal optical drive for $20 but for Apple to put one into the iMac, they have to design the chassis to accommodate the drive and have a part of the production line for the drives to be fitted, wired up and tested.
Without the drive, they don't have to machine the space, order the parts, nor have someone fit and test those parts, nor deal with warranty repairs on failed parts, nor support issues relating to the parts. The savings are far more than the cost of the bare drive itself.
They most certainly couldn't drop the price by $100 without taking a large hit to their profit margins, which is what you suggest. Their average margins are 25% so a $1199 iMac makes $299 profit (minus delivery, which is free). If they just drop $100, that comes straight out of the profits and they still have to maintain the production line to accommodate the design.
27" IPS panels aren't cheap y'know. Dell sells their 27" display for $780. To add a quad-core CPU + GPU + 4GB RAM + 500GB HDD + iSight + wireless KB + Mouse and end up with $1299, you can't just lop off $100 without a strategy for making it work.
One part of the strategy is where people are encouraged to buy software digitally and Apple makes their 30% on Mac App Store sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They could give them away for free 'if they wish to do so' too but the kool-aid I drink is one that makes it clear there is a relationship between what parts cost to buy and fit and what Apple determines they need to be marked up by, which results in the final price.
You may very well buy an internal optical drive for $20 but for Apple to put one into the iMac, they have to design the chassis to accommodate the drive and have a part of the production line for the drives to be fitted, wired up and tested.
Without the drive, they don't have to machine the space, order the parts, nor have someone fit and test those parts, nor deal with warranty repairs on failed parts, nor support issues relating to the parts. The savings are far more than the cost of the bare drive itself.
They most certainly couldn't drop the price by $100 without taking a large hit to their profit margins, which is what you suggest. Their average margins are 25% so a $1199 iMac makes $299 profit (minus delivery, which is free). If they just drop $100, that comes straight out of the profits and they still have to maintain the production line to accommodate the design.
27" IPS panels aren't cheap y'know. Dell sells their 27" display for $780. To add a quad-core CPU + GPU + 4GB RAM + 500GB HDD + iSight + wireless KB + Mouse and end up with $1299, you can't just lop off $100 without a strategy for making it work.
One part of the strategy is where people are encouraged to buy software digitally and Apple makes their 30% on Mac App Store sales.
I never suggested 27" panels were cheap. The cheap ones are 1080 panels, although the Dell and others started higher, meaning those panels most likely dropped off in price at some point given the number of manufacturers and oems that brought their pricing down by several hundred. I am aware of the extra logistics in implementing such a device, although I'm not sure where you got that specific margin. The problem is that you're looking with what they did on the mini combined with their marketing there when the mini has still started lower in the past. As for Apple or any other company, costs are a factor, but they don't determine the end price. If Apple wants to, they can raise the price by $500. what would matter there is if the price increase ends with a net gain after other things such as offsets in volume are factored in. It's not necessarily a goal to sell as chap as possible. I'm still not convinced that the optical drive alone would drop it by that much unless they're holding back slightly on other components to support this. They do a lot of weird things. Anyway you're way too focused on an isolated incident. You should also bear in mind that 21.5" panels are not even remotely expensive relative to something like 27". You can find $100 displays at that size and resolution. Retail price tends to go up exponentially as you go up in size unless you look at A-/B grade panel displays.
Two places: when the Mini lost the optical drive, the component prices remained the same and the price dropped by $100. If you configure a Mac Pro with a second optical drive, Apple charges you $100. I don't know why you aren't convinced that removing the optical drive won't drop the price by that much when they charge that much to put one in and I don't really know what point you are making. I'm saying that they could drop the 21.5" model with a redesign and go 27" across the lineup and dropping the optical will help reach the entry price point.
I think they should too, spending $1200 to get a machine with a 21.5" display isn't very good value but $1300 to get a 27" display is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think they should too, spending $1200 to get a machine with a 21.5" display isn't very good value but $1300 to get a 27" display is.
I definitely agree with you there. Display pricing has fallen considerably since their last major design refresh. Their future designs could be influenced greatly by whether they plan on implementing considerably higher resolution panels in the imacs within the near future, although I don't know if they could really cram the innards of the top configurations behind a smaller panel that puts out more heat.
I'm hoping for an increase in number of iMac models and an increase in the display size range. Maybe something like 20", 24" and 32" (ultra widescreen). Hoping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm hoping for an increase in number of iMac models and an increase in the display size range. Maybe something like 20", 24" and 32" (ultra widescreen). Hoping.
I guess that could happen, but I don't see desktop users going much larger with current usage patterns. Think of it this way. With CRTs, if you needed screen real estate, you went for a 21". They were available for many years. They are very similar in height to the current 24" displays. While the diametric measurements many have increased, most of it has been driven by wider displays. 30" displays have become way less common, replaced by widening the 25.5" form factor to 16:9 and marketing it as 27". I don't see them going much beyond this in mainstream use. It just becomes larger for the sake of larger. Personally I hate that the display size is coupled to the rest of the hardware. Apple pushed this, but I don't personally find it to be ideal. It's beneficial to Apple when it comes to structuring their price points, but I dislike it, especially as I'm not a fan of Apple's display designs (which are not just dependent on panel number/brand). There are many points of contention that come up there. I need a certain amount of drawing freedom. Wacom's QC and service suck so I won't touch the cintiq line. I'm using the second largest (labeled large) intuos as the oversized one has issues of its own. Getting close to 1:1 mapping means using a portion of the display, so the really huge displays become kind of pointless. Given that it's the closest thing to a mid range desktop, the imac sees some use by people who would like to game on it. The gpu relative to display size is a bit of a squeeze there if it's anything demanding. The same thing could be said if they're dealing with animation programs.
The point I wished to make was that coupling the rest of the machine with an ever increasing display size isn't necessarily ideal given the limitations of consumer grade technology. It has worked up to this point as they're able to get a high markup by packaging upgrades together when you go up a tier.
While there has been a lot of discussions on the display I'm actually happy with the display as it is.
What I want to see is Apple move forward with the updated processors and SS drives at a lower price. Improvements behind the display.
But then I have 68 year old eyes.
I would like to see the iMac match the thunderbolt display. I am looking at getting an iMac with 2 Thunderbolt displays attached to it for my business and having the iMac with that chin, and the TB Displays w/o it just doesn't look right.
I am ready to buy, just waiting on Apple, as I am sure a lot of people are.
True, but if they drop the optical drive in favor of an SSD, the price decrease won't likely happen. (At least that's what I'm hoping they're planning)
From the sounds of it, any update this year will just be an incremental update, mostly a switch to Ivy Bridge, mainly offering some speed improvements, cooler operation, USB 3, maybe a more powerful graphics chip along with that. If they do finally remove the optical drive and going SSD-only, that is more in line with a major update that Apple people say will be offered next year, the hint is that it's a major rethink of the product.
This whole discussion has made me wonder, why is there a 27-inch display to begin with? If the display were more resolute, it might not be necessary to have such a big one. That is, suppose you could do the same side-by-side comparison of your reference document, but without such a large screen. It would be better, right? I LOVED the clip that someone put up, of the 42-inch screen in the cubicle. That was a good one!
In fact, a not-a-bad-way to proceed would be to release the smaller iMac with a retina, and then catch up with the bigger retina panel later. However, even though I went out on a limb and said that Apple will be announcing new iMacs this week or next, with immediate availability, I do *not think* there will be a retina option in this iMac's "processor bump". In other words, retina's appearance will be coordinated across the 27 inch products, and maybe they will even be the same height off the desktop!
I can see that argument, some needs for a 27" diminish with retina.
Retina, as it is, generally doesn't necessarily show more information, its main intent is better detail. It doesn't show more words unless you deviate from the Retina-optimized resolution.
A 27" monitor can't show more than two letter sized portrait pages at the same time at 1:1 scale.
That said, if Apple offered a 21" Retina and a 27" non-retina, I might go for the smaller, retina model.
There might be something to having more surface area for cooling though, the performance offered on the 21" model is a couple steps down from what they offer on the 27".
I think it was to help get the price down on the Cinema screen. The 30" Cinema display used to cost $3299 and dropped to $1799 in 2010. When it was discontinued, the 27" Cinema display came in at $999. They use the same panel in the Cinema display as the iMac:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/133052/teardown-of-apples-thunderbolt-display-finds-same-lg-panel-used-in-2009-imac
This means they can order the panels in large quantities and get discounts from the volume. Despite Apple having much higher build quality than Dell, they managed to undercut their price when it launched. The Dell is cheaper now by $200 with the same panel but the Cinema screen has a webcam, mic and speakers inside as well as FW800 and Gig-E and a metal chassis.
If they make the entire lineup 27", they only have to order a single batch of panels for everything. I personally think 24" at 2560 x 1440 across the lineup would be suitable and would drop the price considerably but the price points they hit with the 27" aren't too bad as it is and they will continue to drop so they'd be as well sticking to it. 27" also offers a significant value proposition vs PCs. If a PC bundle is selling at $1249 with a 24":
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883117094
Apple selling the 27" at $1299 is better value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think it was to help get the price down on the Cinema screen. The 30" Cinema display used to cost $3299 and dropped to $1799 in 2010. When it was discontinued, the 27" Cinema display came in at $999. They use the same panel in the Cinema display as the iMac:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/133052/teardown-of-apples-thunderbolt-display-finds-same-lg-panel-used-in-2009-imac
This means they can order the panels in large quantities and get discounts from the volume. Despite Apple having much higher build quality than Dell, they managed to undercut their price when it launched. The Dell is cheaper now by $200 with the same panel but the Cinema screen has a webcam, mic and speakers inside as well as FW800 and Gig-E and a metal chassis.
If they make the entire lineup 27", they only have to order a single batch of panels for everything. I personally think 24" at 2560 x 1440 across the lineup would be suitable and would drop the price considerably but the price points they hit with the 27" aren't too bad as it is and they will continue to drop so they'd be as well sticking to it. 27" also offers a significant value proposition vs PCs. If a PC bundle is selling at $1249 with a 24":
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883117094
Apple selling the 27" at $1299 is better value.
Marvin the "same panel" thing is overstated. There are variations within a basic panel design and the implementation beyond that point. It would require closer comparison to see which one is superior. Dell is actually quite favored as a budget solution. If you're going to pay more and do not require the docking capacity of the TB display, NEC's may be a better option. Their warranties are longer (4 years standard) and the PA displays have 48 hour replacements. Apple may be better in terms of what they cover under warranty. I'm not sure, but most display manufacturers can be annoying to deal with on warranty issues unless the thing is actually bricked. The cinema has also been made into more of a docking station. Regarding 24" displays, I wish those picked up more resolution a long time ago. It's a very nice size.
iMac's design hasn't changed on the outside, its internal components have been completely revamped from those of the previous model. As it upgraded its MacBook Pro laptops earlier this year, Apple has introduced to the iMac Intel's second-generation Core CPU family (formerly code-named Sandy Bridge). It has also added AMD's latest generation of graphics processor, the Radeon HD 6000-series. iPhone users, and those who love them, will appreciate that Apple has brought FaceTime support to the new iMac, which allows for cross-device video chatting over the Internet.