Let me cite an example. I switched a PC owning friend over to an iMac a few years back. I think he bought one just to shut me up. Anyways, it was his first Mac ever. He bought the top of the line iMac which I believe was a core 2 duo. It was about 3 or 4 years ago so not sure exactly which one. About a year ago he complained it was a bit slow. He told me how much RAM was installed and I suggested he double the RAM. This guy is about as far from a techie as you can get. I pointed him to a site where he could buy the RAM and they also had an installation video. He managed to do it by himself in less than 5 minutes and it solved the problem. What would he do now if faced with that situation a few years later? I should also mention his hard drive failed, but luckily he had Applecare and about 2 months left. No Apple store within 100 miles so he had to send it off. Unless he wanted to pay an extra $600 upfront to maximize the RAM he would be SOL. I have never owned an iMac and never plan to as long as they keep making a Mac Pro. I love being able to add/replace hard drives, graphics cards, RAM, or a new interface like USB3 for example even though my machine didn't come with it when purchased. Not to mention having my own monitors not tied to the computer. The imac is just not my cup of tea, but I still think Apple is making a mistake by not allowing easy RAM and hard drive upgrades just for their quest to make it as thin as possible which isn't even that important on a desktop machine that will likely never be moved.
I wouldn't say that it's typical to replace hard drives every 3 years in a Mac but replacing them is a lot more common than some people would have you believe. My v.2 G5 iMac went through 2 hard drives in 4 years. I gave up after the 3rd one gave up the ghost after 16 months... and it had been replaced by Apple. I think there was a heat issue in that particular version of the G5.
Otherwise I haven't had any other problems with drives... but then again, when it was easy to service them I would buy my own drives, so maybe the quality was better.
The only other fault I've had is with my Intel mid 2007 iMac. Apparently there were a few that went out the door with bad graphics cards. Won't let me upgrade beyond 10.6.2. By the time I found out about the problem it was too late and Apple wanted nothing to do with it. Couldn't sell it, couldn't upgrade the OS... so I've just kept it running... and, of course, it will probably run for the next 15 years.
[I've owned over 20 macs in the last 24 years]
I've been a Mac owner since the 1st one in 1984. The iMac G5s were not Apple's shining moment. Luckily, when we upgraded, we were saddled with only a few of those hot, temperamental machines. Remember those loud fans? And the bulging capacitors. And the freezing from the extreme heat generated. And the wonky, vibrating superdrive.
That was my one machine that failed utterly and completely. One day, went to the office, hit the power button, and sat there in disbelief. Too much heat.
That was the one model that got away from Apple in terms of quality control.
That's the problem for many of us. All these changes seem to benefit Apple and not the consumer. Any desktop computer should have easy access to exchanging a hard drive which tend to fail after a certain amount of time, usually the day after the warranty expires. They should also allow easy access to upgrade the RAM. It seems Apple is making it more difficult to steer you towards buying a new iMac in a few years rather than trying to keep the one you have in working condition.
"should have"? Says who?
And don't give me that crap about there being no consumer benefit. Just a few off the top of my head:
1. Higher reliability. A system where components can be easily replaced is subject to things coming loose during shipping or picking up dust later. Apple's products consistently get extremely high quality and reliability ratings.
2. Lighter and thinner. While YOU may not think it's a benefit, lots of consumers obviously do - which is shown by the rapid sale of Apple's products.
3. Environmentally more benign - which ultimately benefits everyone.
Apple made a tradeoff- they are offering an appliance-like computer which is built for reliability and size rather than making it easy for consumers to fiddle around inside. If you really must have that, I understand that Dell is still selling computers. They can help you. Meanwhile, people who are not interested in playing around inside their computers are still buying Macs.
And to others saying Apple RAM is such high quality, you better check your facts. They use Hynix and other medium quality brands typically. They do not use some magical or ultra-premium brand memory or hard drives. There is no justification for them to charge 2 to 3 times retail price when they already get a huge discount off retail since they buy in bulk quantity.
See below. You're wrong on both the specs and the price.
No one is expecting Apple to offer upgrades "at cost." We're asking for prices that are *reasonable* compared to the *retail* prices of RAM on the open market. Do you think Apple pays the same price you or I do for RAM? Obviously not.
Who gets to say what's 'reasonable'? You?
Apple's upgrade costs are easily in line with the rest of the industry. Why should they cut their margin even more?
Furthermore, you have no idea what Apple pays. First, you don't have the specs - and Apple has traditionally chosen the best RAM available. Second, in a spot market like RAM, it is not uncommon for RAM prices to the consumer to be lower than the contract price. An OEM has to pay a premium to guarantee availability and then what's left over gets sold on the spot market. If there's a glut, the spot price is often below the contract price.
Who's talking about "cheapo RAM?" Prices for Crucial or the best Samsung sticks are literally HALF the price Apple charges. Double the retail price of *good* RAM is gouging when they make it nearly impossible to upgrade it ourselves, thus practically forcing us to buy it from them.
Why don't you show us EXACTLY the same RAM at 1/2 Apple's price. Same manufacturing process, same environmental status, same latency, same quality, same reliability, etc. Everyone always talks about "exactly the same thing" but it rarely turns out to be true.
Again, I'm NOT asking for parts at cost, but even just similar margins to what they make on their machines: 30-35 points over cost, which would make the end user price roughly 25% more than third-party alternatives. THAT would be in the range that calling it a "convenience fee" would reasonable, and I'd be less upset about Apple sealing up the chassis.
But you can't look at an individual BTO options and compare it to some off the shelf component.
For starters, it can have the exact same branding right down to the part number but that doesn't mean it's the same. We see this more with CPUs where there are power envelopes and performance variances that favour chips cut form the very same wafer. The Hynix RAM Apple used in that iFixit teardown is 1.35V whereas most I've seen is 1.5V. It's also lead and halogen free yet I haven't seen a single reseller state that for 3rd-party RAM; note that being environmentally friendly should matter to every buyer but it's something Apple does look it because they can market it. That does cost extra as well as likely testing the RAM they get more thoroughly before putting it in their machines because of the excessive mindshare Apple has on them. Hynix can sell Crucial perfectly usable RAM that didn't make the cut for Apple's machines (perhaps that's why there is a voltage difference) and it's not an issue because outside of a spattering of tech forums no one even knows the that Hynix exists.
But that's the least of the reasons you shouldn't compare a BTO options to some off the shelf component from some website. The biggest reason is that Apple doesn't set a magic base unit price that gets their intended profit margin with everything else being gravy. They consider the number of sales for the product with predicted BTO options across the board when they set their goals. You're coming at this as if the base model is some ideal price for Apple and then they bait-and-switch-then-rape you to get you into a "usable" machine (yes, that's intended hyperbole). That simply isn't the case. It's much more likely the base model is below their intended profit margin so they can have a lower starting point with the BTO options intended to bring it back up their sweet spot.
Their sweet spot. Not yours. We all want to pay less but that's life. If a product is popular the company can demand more money for it, especially if it's hard to get. Apple has a great deal of experience with demand exceeding their ability to supply enough units thus they can ask for more money. If you want a company to profit less there are plenty that are struggling with razor thin profits but remember a great deal of Apple's prowess in their respective markets is in their efficiency.
I feel I'll get more value from a $2600 27" iMac than I would from any other PC vendor's product (or any of Apple's other Mac configurations) so that is what I'm getting. It's unlikely I will be regretful of my decision.
They got their start as a "Mac DIY instructions" site, and then they started selling parts…
And then they branched out into DIY for everything, apparently. I think it's more a tribute to their roots than anything else that they even stick with the Mac stuff, but they're sure not giving a very kind tribute.
No charity here. Apple news attracts visitors. If iFixit stopped talking about Apple just because Apple makes tough to tear apart products, their site would be less relevant by a mile!
Well ... one main issue with the previous iMac was that you could easily get dust between the glass and the panel when reassembling it. This problem is gone now. Unfortunately Apple decided not to go with magnets anymore, which makes disassembly a little harder ...
Why don't you show us EXACTLY the same RAM at 1/2 Apple's price. Same manufacturing process, same environmental status, same latency, same quality, same reliability, etc. Everyone always talks about "exactly the same thing" but it rarely turns out to be true.
I forgot that Macs use SuperSelect MagicRAM fortified with iron, niacin and nine essential vitamins, hand-made from the finest organically grown fair-trade silicon wafers and individually selected and inspected by an ordained member of the Appleminati clergy.
It would be irresponsible, nay, BLASPHEMOUS to install mere top-of-the-dirty-corrupt-line Crucial or Samsung RAM. Can you imagine the system corruption that would wreak?
There is absolutely no question in my mind that the RAM Apple uses is SOOOO superior to the comparative dreck that is available to lowly peons like me that it is clearly, obviously and unquestionably worth TWICE as much. At least.
Sorry for the good-natured ribbing, but seriously, I just don't believe that Apple is using parts so special they cost oodles more than even the really good stuff from reputable suppliers.
And to answer one of your questions, yes, I do think it's fair for me to make a judgement about what constitutes a "reasonable" price for upgrades. ANYONE can compare alternatives and see that Apple is simply gouging, period. In case you missed it, I presented Tallest with an analogy: You rent a car and when you go to fill it up before returning it, you find the gas cap is glued on. You can either find a way to pry it off, hire a mechanic, or pay the car rental company twice the price at the pumps across the street. Would you not consider that unreasonable? How is what we're discussing any different?
Wow, what a lame post, [B]v5v[/B]. Sorry, my opinion - ignore it as it's just someone's opinion.
Personally I think some components in Apple gear are more expensive that the competition is due to the fact that they have better after sales service, which isn't always included with the competition. Hence the markup in price. But this is just in addition to the (in my opinion valid) statements made by [B]SolipsismX[/B] and [B]jragosta[/B] previously.
Wow, what a lame post, v5v. Sorry, my opinion - ignore it as it's just someone's opinion.
Yeah, but I value your opinion, so...
Lame as in "not funny" or "clearly operating at below accepted tolerances?"
FWIW, Solipsism and jr are also people I consider to be sharper than your average razor blade, so I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't think using fancy RAM (if they even do) is enough to account for the rather large premium Apple is asking. The last thing I did before logging in here was read several posts on http://27bslash6.com so I may have been channelling a little bit of David Thorne in my comments!
I'd like to think we can disagree without prejudice, and be able to dislike some of Apple's practices and products while still quite liking others. Sometimes it seems like around here "yer either with us or agin' us."
Wow, what a lame post, v5v. Sorry, my opinion - ignore it as it's just someone's opinion.
Yeah, but I value your opinion, so...
Lame as in "not funny" or "clearly operating at below accepted tolerances?"
Sorry, as in not funny. Again, to me (this is important).
FWIW, Solipsism and jr are also people I consider to be sharper than your average razor blade
Haven't heard that one before (I'm not American) but eh, good one!
, so I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't think using fancy RAM (if they even do) is enough to account for the rather large premium Apple is asking.
No disrespect experienced. Their premium is indeed rather large. With a Mac Pro I always buy the minimum RAM from Apple and buy my Kingston or whatever elsewhere. I did once experienced bad RAM, couldn;t return it so I was the fool. With laptops, I just max out while ordering.
The last thing I did before logging in here was read several posts on http://27bslash6.com so I may have been channelling a little bit of David Thorne in my comments!
That site is too funny. Even without reading it, go figure!
I'd like to think we can disagree without prejudice, and be able to dislike some of Apple's practices and products while still quite liking others. Sometimes it seems like around here "yer either with us or agin' us."
Yeah some folks here are indeed strong advocates. Personally I'm quite biased, but always keep my mind open. To Apple competitors, and others' opinions.
Exactly. I believe there was actually a report on this some time ago - and the number of people who ever upgrade their computers is actually quite small. So why make all the compromises necessary to add a capability that's not going to be used?
I've put an SSD into my MacBook and am awaiting delivery of RAM upgrades for the same MacBook and two iMacs. One motivation: knowing that the newer Macs are even harder to open and upgrade. Ironically the fact that Apple is making newer models even harder to take apart is increasing my tendency to upgrade rather than buy a newer faster model and sell the older ones to less demanding users.
I forgot that Macs use SuperSelect MagicRAM fortified with iron, niacin and nine essential vitamins, hand-made from the finest organically grown fair-trade silicon wafers and individually selected and inspected by an ordained member of the Appleminati clergy.
It would be irresponsible, nay, BLASPHEMOUS to install mere top-of-the-dirty-corrupt-line Crucial or Samsung RAM. Can you imagine the system corruption that would wreak?
There is absolutely no question in my mind that the RAM Apple uses is SOOOO superior to the comparative dreck that is available to lowly peons like me that it is clearly, obviously and unquestionably worth TWICE as much. At least.
Sorry for the good-natured ribbing, but seriously, I just don't believe that Apple is using parts so special they cost oodles more than even the really good stuff from reputable suppliers.
And to answer one of your questions, yes, I do think it's fair for me to make a judgement about what constitutes a "reasonable" price for upgrades. ANYONE can compare alternatives and see that Apple is simply gouging, period. In case you missed it, I presented Tallest with an analogy: You rent a car and when you go to fill it up before returning it, you find the gas cap is glued on. You can either find a way to pry it off, hire a mechanic, or pay the car rental company twice the price at the pumps across the street. Would you not consider that unreasonable? How is what we're discussing any different?
I would strongly suggest that you take a course in critical thinking so that you could learn to discuss things rationally rather than your inane whining comments.
There are a number of differences that Apple RAM can have - without resorting to the garbage in your first paragraph. Historically, there is precedent for Apple having done all of the following:
1. Environmental compliance. Apple uses more environmentally benign processes.
2. Lower latency. Much of the cheapo RAM is very high latency.
3. Tighter tolerances. This one is especially true on things like capacitors, but also applies to RAM.
4. Higher levels of testing.
There are a number of cases where use of third party RAM has caused problems while using Apple RAM does not. Unfortunately, the people who have those problems often blame Apple, anyway.
You make a personal choice. Either you want to install a crappy oil filter in your Lexus or you install quality parts. Similarly, you can use RAM which meets all of Apple's specs (which is more expensive) or buy cheap RAM and suffer the consequences. No one is stopping you from doing the latter, although Apple isn't making it easy for you.
Apple's upgrade prices are very reasonable. Quality RAM (ignoring the real cheap junk) would cost $100-150 instead of the $200 Apple is charging - and even that may not meet all of Apple's specs. That's similar to what everyone else charges for RAM upgrades.
2. Lower latency. Much of the cheapo RAM is very high latency.
It may be in other cases, in this case it's not true. PC3 12800 is available in CL 9, 10 and 11. CL 10 and 11 are readily available. This batch of iMacs have CL11 installed.
The bottom line is this is all about money and nothing else. If users are willing to spend $200 on 8GB of RAM, then why shouldn't apple earn as much as possible? No one is forcing you to buy an iMac.
Right, and you can either buy an iMac… or not buy an iMac.
…the going rate…
You can buy RAM identical to that which Apple uses for half that price? Any links?
The consensus here…
Is completely and utterly meaningless, as you well know, due to the inherent skew in this argument.
appears to be that people are NOT paying those prices
And, obviously, they ARE, given that, you know, Apple still charges them.
Of course, the only way to know for sure is to consult sales stats for BTO RAM and storage upgrades…
Or you could look at the prices and note that the prices are the prices, and they're the prices because people are paying those prices. If they weren't, they wouldn't be.
Furthermore, you have no idea what Apple pays. First, you don't have the specs - and Apple has traditionally chosen the best RAM available. Second, in a spot market like RAM, it is not uncommon for RAM prices to the consumer to be lower than the contract price. An OEM has to pay a premium to guarantee availability and then what's left over gets sold on the spot market. If there's a glut, the spot price is often below the contract price.Why don't you show us EXACTLY the same RAM at 1/2 Apple's price. Same manufacturing process, same environmental status, same latency, same quality, same reliability, etc. Everyone always talks about "exactly the same thing" but it rarely turns out to be true.
The last time I changed memory I swapped out apple supplied crucial ram for crucial supplied crucial ram of higher density. Same timings, part number family (just bigger), etc.
Are you claiming some magic pixie dust version of these commodity parts? For the 5200 RPM drive? For the RAM? Really? You can buy the same RAM found in the iFixit teardown across the net. It's the same Hynix RAM with the same timings, part number, etc.
Apple doesn't choose the best XXX available. It chooses the most efficient XXX available for the build and that's different. Hence the 5200 RPM travelstar in the base iMac build. It leads performance per watt but trails in overall performance.
The fact is that losing the ability to install your own RAM and replace the HDD is a significant negative to anyone with semi-competent family technical support. I'm reasonably competent and I have no desire to install RAM into the new 21" iMac.
For a semi-future proof iMac you need to get the 2.9Ghz Core i5 and upgrade to 16GB + Fusion. That's $1,950.
If the RAM is user upgradable, how would Apple ever know how often RAM is upgraded? Sure, they sell RAM on their site, but anyone with enough on the ball to do it themselves will be buying memory at Crucial or OWC. Does every mac secretly phone home when it's configuration changes?
Comments
Let me cite an example. I switched a PC owning friend over to an iMac a few years back. I think he bought one just to shut me up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I wouldn't say that it's typical to replace hard drives every 3 years in a Mac but replacing them is a lot more common than some people would have you believe. My v.2 G5 iMac went through 2 hard drives in 4 years. I gave up after the 3rd one gave up the ghost after 16 months... and it had been replaced by Apple. I think there was a heat issue in that particular version of the G5.
Otherwise I haven't had any other problems with drives... but then again, when it was easy to service them I would buy my own drives, so maybe the quality was better.
The only other fault I've had is with my Intel mid 2007 iMac. Apparently there were a few that went out the door with bad graphics cards. Won't let me upgrade beyond 10.6.2. By the time I found out about the problem it was too late and Apple wanted nothing to do with it. Couldn't sell it, couldn't upgrade the OS... so I've just kept it running... and, of course, it will probably run for the next 15 years.
[I've owned over 20 macs in the last 24 years]
I've been a Mac owner since the 1st one in 1984. The iMac G5s were not Apple's shining moment. Luckily, when we upgraded, we were saddled with only a few of those hot, temperamental machines. Remember those loud fans? And the bulging capacitors. And the freezing from the extreme heat generated. And the wonky, vibrating superdrive.
That was my one machine that failed utterly and completely. One day, went to the office, hit the power button, and sat there in disbelief. Too much heat.
That was the one model that got away from Apple in terms of quality control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You have no means of getting a guitar pick and rolling it around the seam?
Quote:
"To our dismay, we're forced to break out our heat gun"
Quote:
"You'll have to masterfully peel off the old double-sided sticky tape and apply new tape in order to reseal this iMac into original condition".
"should have"? Says who?
And don't give me that crap about there being no consumer benefit. Just a few off the top of my head:
1. Higher reliability. A system where components can be easily replaced is subject to things coming loose during shipping or picking up dust later. Apple's products consistently get extremely high quality and reliability ratings.
2. Lighter and thinner. While YOU may not think it's a benefit, lots of consumers obviously do - which is shown by the rapid sale of Apple's products.
3. Environmentally more benign - which ultimately benefits everyone.
Apple made a tradeoff- they are offering an appliance-like computer which is built for reliability and size rather than making it easy for consumers to fiddle around inside. If you really must have that, I understand that Dell is still selling computers. They can help you. Meanwhile, people who are not interested in playing around inside their computers are still buying Macs.
See below. You're wrong on both the specs and the price.
Who gets to say what's 'reasonable'? You?
Apple's upgrade costs are easily in line with the rest of the industry. Why should they cut their margin even more?
Furthermore, you have no idea what Apple pays. First, you don't have the specs - and Apple has traditionally chosen the best RAM available. Second, in a spot market like RAM, it is not uncommon for RAM prices to the consumer to be lower than the contract price. An OEM has to pay a premium to guarantee availability and then what's left over gets sold on the spot market. If there's a glut, the spot price is often below the contract price.
Why don't you show us EXACTLY the same RAM at 1/2 Apple's price. Same manufacturing process, same environmental status, same latency, same quality, same reliability, etc. Everyone always talks about "exactly the same thing" but it rarely turns out to be true.
But you can't look at an individual BTO options and compare it to some off the shelf component.
For starters, it can have the exact same branding right down to the part number but that doesn't mean it's the same. We see this more with CPUs where there are power envelopes and performance variances that favour chips cut form the very same wafer. The Hynix RAM Apple used in that iFixit teardown is 1.35V whereas most I've seen is 1.5V. It's also lead and halogen free yet I haven't seen a single reseller state that for 3rd-party RAM; note that being environmentally friendly should matter to every buyer but it's something Apple does look it because they can market it. That does cost extra as well as likely testing the RAM they get more thoroughly before putting it in their machines because of the excessive mindshare Apple has on them. Hynix can sell Crucial perfectly usable RAM that didn't make the cut for Apple's machines (perhaps that's why there is a voltage difference) and it's not an issue because outside of a spattering of tech forums no one even knows the that Hynix exists.
But that's the least of the reasons you shouldn't compare a BTO options to some off the shelf component from some website. The biggest reason is that Apple doesn't set a magic base unit price that gets their intended profit margin with everything else being gravy. They consider the number of sales for the product with predicted BTO options across the board when they set their goals. You're coming at this as if the base model is some ideal price for Apple and then they bait-and-switch-then-rape you to get you into a "usable" machine (yes, that's intended hyperbole). That simply isn't the case. It's much more likely the base model is below their intended profit margin so they can have a lower starting point with the BTO options intended to bring it back up their sweet spot.
Their sweet spot. Not yours. We all want to pay less but that's life. If a product is popular the company can demand more money for it, especially if it's hard to get. Apple has a great deal of experience with demand exceeding their ability to supply enough units thus they can ask for more money. If you want a company to profit less there are plenty that are struggling with razor thin profits but remember a great deal of Apple's prowess in their respective markets is in their efficiency.
I feel I'll get more value from a $2600 27" iMac than I would from any other PC vendor's product (or any of Apple's other Mac configurations) so that is what I'm getting. It's unlikely I will be regretful of my decision.
OWC has a video of them removing the display quickly by rolling a guitar pick.
No charity here. Apple news attracts visitors. If iFixit stopped talking about Apple just because Apple makes tough to tear apart products, their site would be less relevant by a mile!
Well ... one main issue with the previous iMac was that you could easily get dust between the glass and the panel when reassembling it. This problem is gone now. Unfortunately Apple decided not to go with magnets anymore, which makes disassembly a little harder ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why don't you show us EXACTLY the same RAM at 1/2 Apple's price. Same manufacturing process, same environmental status, same latency, same quality, same reliability, etc. Everyone always talks about "exactly the same thing" but it rarely turns out to be true.
I forgot that Macs use SuperSelect MagicRAM fortified with iron, niacin and nine essential vitamins, hand-made from the finest organically grown fair-trade silicon wafers and individually selected and inspected by an ordained member of the Appleminati clergy.
It would be irresponsible, nay, BLASPHEMOUS to install mere top-of-the-dirty-corrupt-line Crucial or Samsung RAM. Can you imagine the system corruption that would wreak?
There is absolutely no question in my mind that the RAM Apple uses is SOOOO superior to the comparative dreck that is available to lowly peons like me that it is clearly, obviously and unquestionably worth TWICE as much. At least.
Sorry for the good-natured ribbing, but seriously, I just don't believe that Apple is using parts so special they cost oodles more than even the really good stuff from reputable suppliers.
And to answer one of your questions, yes, I do think it's fair for me to make a judgement about what constitutes a "reasonable" price for upgrades. ANYONE can compare alternatives and see that Apple is simply gouging, period. In case you missed it, I presented Tallest with an analogy: You rent a car and when you go to fill it up before returning it, you find the gas cap is glued on. You can either find a way to pry it off, hire a mechanic, or pay the car rental company twice the price at the pumps across the street. Would you not consider that unreasonable? How is what we're discussing any different?
Personally I think some components in Apple gear are more expensive that the competition is due to the fact that they have better after sales service, which isn't always included with the competition. Hence the markup in price. But this is just in addition to the (in my opinion valid) statements made by [B]SolipsismX[/B] and [B]jragosta[/B] previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Wow, what a lame post, v5v. Sorry, my opinion - ignore it as it's just someone's opinion.
Yeah, but I value your opinion, so...
Lame as in "not funny" or "clearly operating at below accepted tolerances?"
FWIW, Solipsism and jr are also people I consider to be sharper than your average razor blade, so I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't think using fancy RAM (if they even do) is enough to account for the rather large premium Apple is asking. The last thing I did before logging in here was read several posts on http://27bslash6.com so I may have been channelling a little bit of David Thorne in my comments!
I'd like to think we can disagree without prejudice, and be able to dislike some of Apple's practices and products while still quite liking others. Sometimes it seems like around here "yer either with us or agin' us."
Sorry, as in not funny. Again, to me (this is important).
Haven't heard that one before (I'm not American) but eh, good one!
No disrespect experienced. Their premium is indeed rather large. With a Mac Pro I always buy the minimum RAM from Apple and buy my Kingston or whatever elsewhere. I did once experienced bad RAM, couldn;t return it so I was the fool. With laptops, I just max out while ordering.
That site is too funny. Even without reading it, go figure!
Yeah some folks here are indeed strong advocates. Personally I'm quite biased, but always keep my mind open. To Apple competitors, and others' opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Exactly. I believe there was actually a report on this some time ago - and the number of people who ever upgrade their computers is actually quite small. So why make all the compromises necessary to add a capability that's not going to be used?
I've put an SSD into my MacBook and am awaiting delivery of RAM upgrades for the same MacBook and two iMacs. One motivation: knowing that the newer Macs are even harder to open and upgrade. Ironically the fact that Apple is making newer models even harder to take apart is increasing my tendency to upgrade rather than buy a newer faster model and sell the older ones to less demanding users.
I would strongly suggest that you take a course in critical thinking so that you could learn to discuss things rationally rather than your inane whining comments.
There are a number of differences that Apple RAM can have - without resorting to the garbage in your first paragraph. Historically, there is precedent for Apple having done all of the following:
1. Environmental compliance. Apple uses more environmentally benign processes.
2. Lower latency. Much of the cheapo RAM is very high latency.
3. Tighter tolerances. This one is especially true on things like capacitors, but also applies to RAM.
4. Higher levels of testing.
There are a number of cases where use of third party RAM has caused problems while using Apple RAM does not. Unfortunately, the people who have those problems often blame Apple, anyway.
You make a personal choice. Either you want to install a crappy oil filter in your Lexus or you install quality parts. Similarly, you can use RAM which meets all of Apple's specs (which is more expensive) or buy cheap RAM and suffer the consequences. No one is stopping you from doing the latter, although Apple isn't making it easy for you.
Apple's upgrade prices are very reasonable. Quality RAM (ignoring the real cheap junk) would cost $100-150 instead of the $200 Apple is charging - and even that may not meet all of Apple's specs. That's similar to what everyone else charges for RAM upgrades.
It may be in other cases, in this case it's not true. PC3 12800 is available in CL 9, 10 and 11. CL 10 and 11 are readily available. This batch of iMacs have CL11 installed.
The bottom line is this is all about money and nothing else. If users are willing to spend $200 on 8GB of RAM, then why shouldn't apple earn as much as possible? No one is forcing you to buy an iMac.
Originally Posted by v5v
I'm able to decide what's reasonable to me..
Right, and you can either buy an iMac… or not buy an iMac.
…the going rate…
You can buy RAM identical to that which Apple uses for half that price? Any links?
The consensus here…
Is completely and utterly meaningless, as you well know, due to the inherent skew in this argument.
appears to be that people are NOT paying those prices
And, obviously, they ARE, given that, you know, Apple still charges them.
Of course, the only way to know for sure is to consult sales stats for BTO RAM and storage upgrades…
Or you could look at the prices and note that the prices are the prices, and they're the prices because people are paying those prices. If they weren't, they wouldn't be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Furthermore, you have no idea what Apple pays. First, you don't have the specs - and Apple has traditionally chosen the best RAM available. Second, in a spot market like RAM, it is not uncommon for RAM prices to the consumer to be lower than the contract price. An OEM has to pay a premium to guarantee availability and then what's left over gets sold on the spot market. If there's a glut, the spot price is often below the contract price.Why don't you show us EXACTLY the same RAM at 1/2 Apple's price. Same manufacturing process, same environmental status, same latency, same quality, same reliability, etc. Everyone always talks about "exactly the same thing" but it rarely turns out to be true.
The last time I changed memory I swapped out apple supplied crucial ram for crucial supplied crucial ram of higher density. Same timings, part number family (just bigger), etc.
Are you claiming some magic pixie dust version of these commodity parts? For the 5200 RPM drive? For the RAM? Really? You can buy the same RAM found in the iFixit teardown across the net. It's the same Hynix RAM with the same timings, part number, etc.
Apple doesn't choose the best XXX available. It chooses the most efficient XXX available for the build and that's different. Hence the 5200 RPM travelstar in the base iMac build. It leads performance per watt but trails in overall performance.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/notebook-hard-drive-review,3270-3.html
The fact is that losing the ability to install your own RAM and replace the HDD is a significant negative to anyone with semi-competent family technical support. I'm reasonably competent and I have no desire to install RAM into the new 21" iMac.
For a semi-future proof iMac you need to get the 2.9Ghz Core i5 and upgrade to 16GB + Fusion. That's $1,950.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is going to be seen as an archaic mindset very soon, and Steve will finally get his first really unfulfilled wish.
You do realize that he was wishing for the tidal wave of money to get larger, not for some promised land of computing goodness, don't you?