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?
You do realize that the wish to which I'm alluding is for a completely closed computer, don't you? He disliked the Apple ][ in this regard and so made the Macintosh as closed as possible.
I don't know where your "promised land" FUD is coming from or what you're trying to imply by it, but go ahead.
I have upgraded the RAM is just about every Mac I've owned in the last 8 years, so easy access to the RAM chips is important to me. I have also had my fair share of hard drives fail on me, so easy access to replace those is also important to me. I know I can always have Apple do the work for me, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper to do it myself.
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.
I wasn't whining, I was going for a cheap laugh. Based on the responses so far, it would appear that there may be a reason I mix and edit for a living instead of writing for Leno...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
I believe you. I just don't believe that it's that much better than premium parts from a reputable third-party supplier, nor that it's different enough to justify the enormity of the price premium they're asking.
Maybe it's better, maybe, but not THAT much better.
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?
I believe you. I just don't believe that it's that much better than premium parts from a reputable third-party supplier, nor that it's different enough to justify the enormity of the price premium they're asking.
Maybe it's better, maybe, but not THAT much better.
You need to define "better." You're stilling looking at it from some component spec but a buyer might look at the time saved between choosing more RAM when buying their Mac over going to some 3rd-party site to hunt down the right RAM, having it shipped to them (perhaps from a company they've never used), and then installing it themselves or having someone else do it as a favour or for a fee as "better."
Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone who is tech savvy wants to do spend the time doing tech things. I know that if I were to buy a 21.5" iMac and wanted to use the SSD card for Fusion Drive I would just buy it from Apple because I do not want to solder in my own mini-PCIe slot that houses the SSD card. I have the tools and could figure it out (assuming that is the only component missing) but that isn't something I want to do. Sure, RAM is considerably easier to install but that doesn't mean it's something everyone wants to or could do.
Do you do your own car repairs?I like to but there are times when I just don't want to bother. If it's monotonous and frequentI chore like washing my car I tend to pay someone else to do it even though I have the equipment and would probably do a better job. Still, it's a convenience I gladly pay for. Same goes to grabbing a meal at a fast food restaurant.
I simply don't understand why this convenience option from this one PC vendor creates such an issue with people on tech forums and yet seems to go unnoticed with everything else in the world.
[...] You're stilling looking at it from some component spec but a buyer might look at the time saved between choosing more RAM when buying their Mac over going to some 3rd-party site to hunt down the right RAM, having it shipped to them (perhaps from a company they've never used), and then installing it themselves or having someone else do it as a favour or for a fee as "better."
I understand what you're saying. Maybe I haven't acknowledged that clearly enough in my responses. I completely agree. Even with easily serviceable machines like I have now, upgrades are an inconvenience I could do without. I'd much rather NOT start dismantling my new computer moments after unboxing it. The only reason I do is because the cost of having Apple do it for me is enough to overcome the cognitive dissonance that makes me believe it's worth it.
I'm so lazy I shower with my clothes on to avoid doing laundry, so when the prices are high enough to overcome THAT kind of inertia and make ME do it myself, it's past the point of being even a premium-price luxury convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I simply don't understand why this convenience option from this one PC vendor creates such an issue with people on tech forums and yet seems to go unnoticed with everything else in the world.
I know what you mean. It's a question of value -- how much is my time worth, what is the perceived benefit of doing something more productive or enjoyable vs. the cost of the service? That's reasonable and, as you suggest, I do it all the time. There's a threshold though. At some point the cost exceeds that value perception. I appreciate that the threshold is different for everyone, but I honestly think it's fair to generalize that the current price points for Apple add-ons are above the point *most* people would consider "reasonable."
I'm so lazy I shower with my clothes on to avoid doing laundry...
I like that idea.
There's a threshold though. At some point the cost exceeds that value perception. I appreciate that the threshold is different for everyone, but I honestly think it's fair to generalize that the current price points for Apple add-ons are above the point *most* people would consider "reasonable."
There definitely is an individual threshold. For instance, I'm buying the largest Fusion Drive, bet GPU and CPU for my 27" iMac, but with minimum RAM. The CPU is socketed so I could upgrade that on m own but I don't want to (haven't even looked at the cost difference). The 32GB RAM I'm buying is $300 from Newegg so that's a $300 savings.
To me that is the one area that I will bother upgrading after market but on the 21.5" we're talking about a savings of $50 to $130 since it's only $200 for 16GB. That's not a big enough divide to make me want to do it myself and lose a lot of service features you get from the BTO option that is warrantied by Apple.
Note that I am familiar with mods. I removed the ODD, installed an OptiBay chassis, and have a 1TB HDD+ 80GB SSD running as a Fusion Drive with 8GB RAM (max) on my 2010 MBP. I just don't think a $50 to $130 savings for a Mac one will have 2 to 5(?) years is a big deal.
You need to define "better." You're stilling looking at it from some component spec but a buyer might look at the time saved between choosing more RAM when buying their Mac over going to some 3rd-party site to hunt down the right RAM, having it shipped to them (perhaps from a company they've never used), and then installing it themselves or having someone else do it as a favour or for a fee as "better."
On a scale of 1-10 of technical difficulty what you describe is a 2 in the old 21" iMac. It consists of:
0) Go to crucial web site on your iMac and run their scanner to let it pick the right RAM for you.
1) Open Door held in with 3 phillips screws
2) Pull plastic tab out.
3) Pull old ram out.
4) Put new ram in.
5) Push plastic tab in.
6) Close and screw in 3 screws.
The "time saved" is very minimal.
Quote:
Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone who is tech savvy wants to do spend the time doing tech things. I know that if I were to buy a 21.5" iMac and wanted to use the SSD card for Fusion Drive I would just buy it from Apple because I do not want to solder in my own mini-PCIe slot that houses the SSD card. I have the tools and could figure it out (assuming that is the only component missing) but that isn't something I want to do.
Soldering your own mini-PCIe slot is a straw man example. Opening a door and slapping in a new SSD card should be the expected use case.
Quote:
I simply don't understand why this convenience option from this one PC vendor creates such an issue with people on tech forums and yet seems to go unnoticed with everything else in the world.
Because this is an Apple forum talking about Apple computers and this used to be a lot easier on the previous model 21" iMac and because the cost delta is very high.
Remember in the new computing model the iMac is a pickup truck. There are some things you want to be able to do with a truck that you don't with a sedan (iPad) and comparatively the cost investment is much higher.
To me that is the one area that I will bother upgrading after market but on the 21.5" we're talking about a savings of $50 to $130 since it's only $200 for 16GB. That's not a big enough divide to make me want to do it myself and lose a lot of service features you get from the BTO option that is warrantied by Apple.
Eh, it's not either or. Apple COULD have designed to be as expandable as before, they simply choose not to on the two components it was easy for most users to upgrade.
In any case the BTO options are also lacking given you can't get a 256GB SSD option. That 128GB SSD +5200 RPM HDD drive is going to be both pokey and small in a few years.
Eh, it's not either or. Apple COULD have designed to be as expandable as before, they simply choose not to on the two components it was easy for most users to upgrade.
In any case the BTO options are also lacking given you can't get a 256GB SSD option. That 128GB SSD +5200 RPM HDD drive is going to be both pokey and small in a few years.
Saying that Apple "could have" designed their iMac differently is a bona fide straw man. They could have designed everything differently. What does that prove? That all their products have been wrong since they were first founded?
As I previously stated, I think the 27" iMac was the focus for this design and the 21.5" iMac was an after thought. I say this because the 27" iMac has a 3.5" HDD and external access to the RAM. So if you are one that wants the 21.5" iMac but wants a 3.5" HDD then the 2011 model would probably serve you well.
I don't think anything they did with the new iMacs is anything that is going to hurt iMac sales, hurt Mac sales, or hurt Apple. I think those suggesting it are out of touch with reality of who is Apple's biggest buyers.
That's special. Someone who asserts that the design of the 21" iMac is "an afterthought" calling others "out of touch with reality".
The design of the 21" iMac was deliberately positioned to have no user modifiable parts to help upsell the 27" with a higher ASP and higher profit. That wasn't an afterthought nor is it an artifact of the design language.
You can argue that it won't hurt sales much and that's somewhat true given that the majority of sales are laptops anyway. But it is impossible to argue that the change is beneficial for users.
I have always argued that the xMac was never going to happen because Apple makes more money going the iMac route. Not because it was better for users. This is the same deal. Apple will make more money this way and that's good for Apple.
I personally don't care. I'll likely get a mini again although I do wish that had a GPU.
The design of the 21" iMac was deliberately positioned to have no user modifiable parts to help upsell the 27" with a higher ASP and higher profit.
It's realistic given the points I made. For your "upsell" conspiracy to be valid you have throw out all logic to believe that paying $200 more for 16GB RAM was too expensive that users would then feel required to pay a $575 premium so they can install 16GB RAM themselves. Show us the rule in business that makes that a valid definition of the "upsell".
I have always argued that the xMac was never going to happen because Apple makes more money going the iMac route. Not because it was better for users. This is the same deal. Apple will make more money this way and that's good for Apple.
So Apple wil make more money if they don't allow their devices to have to be user-upgradable and yet the new 27" iMac is which means that your entire premise is flawed. It should also be pointed out that any other current or previous Mac that can be user-graded would also invalid your premise unless you wish to spin a tale that Apple has just now realized this.
It's realistic given the points I made. For your "upsell" conspiracy to be valid you have throw out all logic to believe that paying $200 more for 16GB RAM was too expensive that users would then feel required to pay a $575 premium so they can install 16GB RAM themselves.
It's a conspiracy theory to assert that Apple is tops in product strategy and has what is probably the industry's most finely tuned product line up?
Not one single machine from the lowest iPod to the Mac Pro is not carefully positioned against each other to maximize ASP and margins.
Quote:
Show us the rule in business that makes that a valid definition of the "upsell".
The base 21.5" iMac is deliberately configured to upsell by eliminating all BTO options except for a memory upgrade. Even there, because you can't easily upgrade the RAM later, that design decision upsells you on the $200 16GB upgrade even if 8GB is enough for now...which it is for most folks. Most folks that own Macs already will know that their Macs last a long long time...as long as you aren't beachballing waiting for the disk or for memory to swap.
The fact is that the best way to future proof your iMac purchase today, assuming that it is designed so that you cannot easily upgrade your RAM or HDD later, is to max out your RAM and install a SSD as part of your BTO.
This is not a $200 upgrade option. This requires moving to the middle iMac tier in order to get the Fusion drive as a BTO option. The cost for that 21" iMac is $1949 for a 2.9 Ghz quad core i5, 16GB RAM and Fusion Drive.
At which point you go: Well hell, I can get the 2.9 Ghz quad core i5 27" iMac with the Fusion drive for $2049 and buy more RAM later when I really need it.
This isn't a conspiracy. This is good business. This is also why the Mini has no GPU.
There is no way in Apple's current line up to finesse your way around real hardware limitations without paying the upsell and the line up is absolutely brilliant.
Quote:
So Apple wil make more money if they don't allow their devices to have to be user-upgradable and yet the new 27" iMac is which means that your entire premise is flawed. It should also be pointed out that any other current or previous Mac that can be user-graded would also invalid your premise unless you wish to spin a tale that Apple has just now realized this.
Why on earth would you assert that? The point is that they deliberately make it so that you cannot save money on 3rd party enhancements (specifically RAM) without paying for an iMac with higher ASPs. That's not accidental or an afterthought. Apple doesn't DO that (accidents or afterthoughts) with their product line. If it's there it's engineered to be there. Sure, they can screw things up and miscalculate but the outcome "isn't accidental".
The existence of prior models that allowed certain technically capable folks to finesse their way around the product line doesn't invalidate anything. There has been an ongoing trend to deprecate that since the elimination of the last xMac (the 2003 $1299 MDD Powermac G4). Those days are in their final hours.
Apple's only issue is that on the models they do not offer decent costs on, they will have issues selling.
They can continue to make things less repairable but if costs are too high to order BTO upgrades, their margins might be fine for some higher end models but the lower end models might stagnate.
The point is that they deliberately make it so that you cannot save money on 3rd party enhancements (specifically RAM) without paying for an iMac with higher ASPs/
Just to be clear, you are saying that anyone who wants a 21.5" iMac is being forced to pay for a 27" do to some Montgomery Burns conspiracy that will get them into a 27" iMac, an iMac that won't even be out for weeks despite the 21.5" iMac being available. That makes more sense to you than Apple seeing the 21.5" iMac as more of a consumer device that is infrequently upgraded after market compared to the 27" iMac being a business-class workstation that is more frequently upgraded after market?
If what you say is true then they should have never made the 21.5" iMac at all so all iMac buyers would get the 27" model.
Just to be clear, you are saying that anyone who wants a 21.5" iMac is being forced to pay for a 27" do to some Montgomery Burns conspiracy that will get them into a 27" iMac, an iMac that won't even be out for weeks despite the 21.5" iMac being available. That makes more sense to you than Apple seeing the 21.5" iMac as more of a consumer device that is infrequently upgraded after market compared to the 27" iMac being a business-class workstation that is more frequently upgraded after market?
If what you say is true then they should have never made the 21.5" iMac at all so all iMac buyers would get the 27" model.
Nope. Not saying that. I'm saying that Apple's product lineup is deliberately designed to make you either spend $$$ upgrading via BTO or spend $$$ upselling to the 27". Either way they make more money. Some small fraction of folks will buy the lowest end iMac or mini. Most will get upsold. Apple doesn't care if they upsell you to a $2000 21.5" iMac or a $2100 27" iMac.
You seem to have a problem with Apple's ability to make high margins with a high ASP and calling it a Montgomery Burns conspiracy. They aren't where they are by accident and they aren't incompetent...despite the current supply chain glitch with the iMacs.
The 27" iMac isn't a "business class workstation" nor is it getting upgraded after market either except for the RAM. Those are Mac Pros. iMacs are nice machines and neither is more or less "pro" than the other. The difference is that the 27" base model can get fusion without a costly bump to the mid tier so the cost delta is surprisingly small between the mid-grade 21" iMac and the 27" iMac. Apple has positioned the price/performance sweet spots to be at the higher end or at the very bottom end.
You have to be a real dumbass to get the 21.5" 2.9 Ghz Core i5 with 16GB RAM and Fusion ($1949) over the 27" 2.9 Ghz Core i5 with 16GB RAM and Fusion ($2049 + $40 for a 8GB RAM upgrade) for a $150 price delta. Especially since you can literally install new RAM in 10 minutes or less and it doesn't void your warranty AND you get a better GPU to boot.
Now the i7 21"iMac quite isn't as bad at $2150 since it's a $300 delta between that and the $2450 i7 BTO option (with Fusion) for the 27". But man you get a lot of performance for that $300. The 21.5" i7 is a comparatively a poor value.
The best bangs for the buck are the base $1300 21.5" iMac, $2050 Core i5 27" w/fusion and the $2600 3.4 Ghz i7 w/GTX 680 + Fusion 27"
That's strange; first you come across that you don't understand how and why Apple prices their products as they do, to me, and then you make a completely valid statement indicating, to me, that you do understand;
The best bangs for the buck are the base $1300 21.5" iMac, $2050 Core i5 27" w/fusion and the $2600 3.4 Ghz i7 w/GTX 680 + Fusion 27"
For some reason I take it you think the 27" iMac (whatever config) is better than the 21.5" iMac (whatever config). Seems to me you're forgetting that some people think a 27" screen is way too large for their needs and or taste. Heck, I know quite a few people who wish the return of the 17" and yes, even the 15" screens.
Bigger isn't always better, especially outside of the States. Just consider the smaller houses in Europe, where Apple might not get a good foothold into the living room if they start selling a big Apple TV screen. Not that I think they will, but that's another matter.
You seem to have a problem with Apple's ability to make high margins with a high ASP and calling it a Montgomery Burns conspiracy.
I have a problem with upsell conspiracy that forces people to forego the 21.5" for the 27". How exactly does this scenario work? "Gee, I was going to buy the 21.5" iMac but since it would cost me $50 to $130 more than what Apple charges for pre-installed RAM upgrades I'm going to instead pay $600 more for the 27" iMac which is far too big for my needs." That sounds like a reasonable scenario to you? If so, then you might be Montgomery Burns.
Bottom line: Most people look at the size that suits their needs and then configure options accordingly.
You have to be a real dumbass to get the 21.5" 2.9 Ghz Core i5 with 16GB RAM and Fusion ($1949) over the 27" 2.9 Ghz Core i5 with 16GB RAM and Fusion ($2049 + $40 for a 8GB RAM upgrade) for a $150 price delta. Especially since you can literally install new RAM in 10 minutes or less and it doesn't void your warranty AND you get a better GPU to boot.
So now people that have a 21.5" iMac are dumbasses? Shame on you!
That's strange; first you come across that you don't understand how and why Apple prices their products as they do, to me, and then you make a completely valid statement indicating, to me, that you do understand;
What? Just because I'm an avid fan of Apple doesn't mean I'm blind to how they price and position product to maximize my dollars spent. I'm also not going to whine when iFixIt gives an accurate assessment of user repairability and upgradeability. The trend is toward none.
Quote:
For some reason I take it you think the 27" iMac (whatever config) is better than the 21.5" iMac (whatever config). Seems to me you're forgetting that some people think a 27" screen is way too large for their needs and or taste. Heck, I know quite a few people who wish the return of the 17" and yes, even the 15" screens.
Bigger isn't always better, especially outside of the States. Just consider the smaller houses in Europe, where Apple might not get a good foothold into the living room if they start selling a big Apple TV screen. Not that I think they will, but that's another matter.
Yes. Whether you personally like 21" better than 27" is immaterial. The GPU is better in the 27" (660M vs 650M). The maximum supported RAM is higher (32GB vs 16GB). The ability to install your own RAM is better. The screen is both higher resolution (1920x1280 vs 2560x1440) and bigger.
As far as size for smaller homes or what not, that's a personal choice. From my perspective a 27" iMac that can double as a TV (Slingbox + XBMC) is as or more viable than a 21" iMac (or some idiotic 15" iMac...get a 13" MBA) and a 32" HDTV if space is at a real premium. European homes are no smaller than dorm rooms, apartments, RVs, boats or even a large number of US homes. My first house was a 1400 sq ft rancher which is the same size as the average house in Denmark. The last apartment I lived in was no more than 800 sq ft which is smaller than the average house in the UK (smallest in the EU).
Given that you see 27" iMacs in RVs, boats, apartments, dorm rooms, etc the size of the 27" iMac is not that significant a factor. I'd probably go the 32" HDTV + mac mini + PS3 route but as I said, the 27" iMac is just a viable a build.
Comments
Originally Posted by Conrail
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?
You do realize that the wish to which I'm alluding is for a completely closed computer, don't you? He disliked the Apple ][ in this regard and so made the Macintosh as closed as possible.
I don't know where your "promised land" FUD is coming from or what you're trying to imply by it, but go ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
I wasn't whining, I was going for a cheap laugh. Based on the responses so far, it would appear that there may be a reason I mix and edit for a living instead of writing for Leno...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
I believe you. I just don't believe that it's that much better than premium parts from a reputable third-party supplier, nor that it's different enough to justify the enormity of the price premium they're asking.
Maybe it's better, maybe, but not THAT much better.
You need to define "better." You're stilling looking at it from some component spec but a buyer might look at the time saved between choosing more RAM when buying their Mac over going to some 3rd-party site to hunt down the right RAM, having it shipped to them (perhaps from a company they've never used), and then installing it themselves or having someone else do it as a favour or for a fee as "better."
Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone who is tech savvy wants to do spend the time doing tech things. I know that if I were to buy a 21.5" iMac and wanted to use the SSD card for Fusion Drive I would just buy it from Apple because I do not want to solder in my own mini-PCIe slot that houses the SSD card. I have the tools and could figure it out (assuming that is the only component missing) but that isn't something I want to do. Sure, RAM is considerably easier to install but that doesn't mean it's something everyone wants to or could do.
Do you do your own car repairs?I like to but there are times when I just don't want to bother. If it's monotonous and frequentI chore like washing my car I tend to pay someone else to do it even though I have the equipment and would probably do a better job. Still, it's a convenience I gladly pay for. Same goes to grabbing a meal at a fast food restaurant.
I simply don't understand why this convenience option from this one PC vendor creates such an issue with people on tech forums and yet seems to go unnoticed with everything else in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] You're stilling looking at it from some component spec but a buyer might look at the time saved between choosing more RAM when buying their Mac over going to some 3rd-party site to hunt down the right RAM, having it shipped to them (perhaps from a company they've never used), and then installing it themselves or having someone else do it as a favour or for a fee as "better."
I understand what you're saying. Maybe I haven't acknowledged that clearly enough in my responses. I completely agree. Even with easily serviceable machines like I have now, upgrades are an inconvenience I could do without. I'd much rather NOT start dismantling my new computer moments after unboxing it. The only reason I do is because the cost of having Apple do it for me is enough to overcome the cognitive dissonance that makes me believe it's worth it.
I'm so lazy I shower with my clothes on to avoid doing laundry, so when the prices are high enough to overcome THAT kind of inertia and make ME do it myself, it's past the point of being even a premium-price luxury convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I simply don't understand why this convenience option from this one PC vendor creates such an issue with people on tech forums and yet seems to go unnoticed with everything else in the world.
I know what you mean. It's a question of value -- how much is my time worth, what is the perceived benefit of doing something more productive or enjoyable vs. the cost of the service? That's reasonable and, as you suggest, I do it all the time. There's a threshold though. At some point the cost exceeds that value perception. I appreciate that the threshold is different for everyone, but I honestly think it's fair to generalize that the current price points for Apple add-ons are above the point *most* people would consider "reasonable."
I like that idea.
There definitely is an individual threshold. For instance, I'm buying the largest Fusion Drive, bet GPU and CPU for my 27" iMac, but with minimum RAM. The CPU is socketed so I could upgrade that on m own but I don't want to (haven't even looked at the cost difference). The 32GB RAM I'm buying is $300 from Newegg so that's a $300 savings.
To me that is the one area that I will bother upgrading after market but on the 21.5" we're talking about a savings of $50 to $130 since it's only $200 for 16GB. That's not a big enough divide to make me want to do it myself and lose a lot of service features you get from the BTO option that is warrantied by Apple.
Note that I am familiar with mods. I removed the ODD, installed an OptiBay chassis, and have a 1TB HDD+ 80GB SSD running as a Fusion Drive with 8GB RAM (max) on my 2010 MBP. I just don't think a $50 to $130 savings for a Mac one will have 2 to 5(?) years is a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You need to define "better." You're stilling looking at it from some component spec but a buyer might look at the time saved between choosing more RAM when buying their Mac over going to some 3rd-party site to hunt down the right RAM, having it shipped to them (perhaps from a company they've never used), and then installing it themselves or having someone else do it as a favour or for a fee as "better."
On a scale of 1-10 of technical difficulty what you describe is a 2 in the old 21" iMac. It consists of:
0) Go to crucial web site on your iMac and run their scanner to let it pick the right RAM for you.
1) Open Door held in with 3 phillips screws
2) Pull plastic tab out.
3) Pull old ram out.
4) Put new ram in.
5) Push plastic tab in.
6) Close and screw in 3 screws.
The "time saved" is very minimal.
Quote:
Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone who is tech savvy wants to do spend the time doing tech things. I know that if I were to buy a 21.5" iMac and wanted to use the SSD card for Fusion Drive I would just buy it from Apple because I do not want to solder in my own mini-PCIe slot that houses the SSD card. I have the tools and could figure it out (assuming that is the only component missing) but that isn't something I want to do.
Soldering your own mini-PCIe slot is a straw man example. Opening a door and slapping in a new SSD card should be the expected use case.
Quote:
I simply don't understand why this convenience option from this one PC vendor creates such an issue with people on tech forums and yet seems to go unnoticed with everything else in the world.
Because this is an Apple forum talking about Apple computers and this used to be a lot easier on the previous model 21" iMac and because the cost delta is very high.
Remember in the new computing model the iMac is a pickup truck. There are some things you want to be able to do with a truck that you don't with a sedan (iPad) and comparatively the cost investment is much higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
To me that is the one area that I will bother upgrading after market but on the 21.5" we're talking about a savings of $50 to $130 since it's only $200 for 16GB. That's not a big enough divide to make me want to do it myself and lose a lot of service features you get from the BTO option that is warrantied by Apple.
Eh, it's not either or. Apple COULD have designed to be as expandable as before, they simply choose not to on the two components it was easy for most users to upgrade.
In any case the BTO options are also lacking given you can't get a 256GB SSD option. That 128GB SSD +5200 RPM HDD drive is going to be both pokey and small in a few years.
Saying that Apple "could have" designed their iMac differently is a bona fide straw man. They could have designed everything differently. What does that prove? That all their products have been wrong since they were first founded?
As I previously stated, I think the 27" iMac was the focus for this design and the 21.5" iMac was an after thought. I say this because the 27" iMac has a 3.5" HDD and external access to the RAM. So if you are one that wants the 21.5" iMac but wants a 3.5" HDD then the 2011 model would probably serve you well.
I don't think anything they did with the new iMacs is anything that is going to hurt iMac sales, hurt Mac sales, or hurt Apple. I think those suggesting it are out of touch with reality of who is Apple's biggest buyers.
The design of the 21" iMac was deliberately positioned to have no user modifiable parts to help upsell the 27" with a higher ASP and higher profit. That wasn't an afterthought nor is it an artifact of the design language.
You can argue that it won't hurt sales much and that's somewhat true given that the majority of sales are laptops anyway. But it is impossible to argue that the change is beneficial for users.
I have always argued that the xMac was never going to happen because Apple makes more money going the iMac route. Not because it was better for users. This is the same deal. Apple will make more money this way and that's good for Apple.
I personally don't care. I'll likely get a mini again although I do wish that had a GPU.
It's realistic given the points I made. For your "upsell" conspiracy to be valid you have throw out all logic to believe that paying $200 more for 16GB RAM was too expensive that users would then feel required to pay a $575 premium so they can install 16GB RAM themselves. Show us the rule in business that makes that a valid definition of the "upsell".
So Apple wil make more money if they don't allow their devices to have to be user-upgradable and yet the new 27" iMac is which means that your entire premise is flawed. It should also be pointed out that any other current or previous Mac that can be user-graded would also invalid your premise unless you wish to spin a tale that Apple has just now realized this.
Never mind
Is that a serious question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's realistic given the points I made. For your "upsell" conspiracy to be valid you have throw out all logic to believe that paying $200 more for 16GB RAM was too expensive that users would then feel required to pay a $575 premium so they can install 16GB RAM themselves.
It's a conspiracy theory to assert that Apple is tops in product strategy and has what is probably the industry's most finely tuned product line up?
Not one single machine from the lowest iPod to the Mac Pro is not carefully positioned against each other to maximize ASP and margins.
Quote:
Show us the rule in business that makes that a valid definition of the "upsell".
The base 21.5" iMac is deliberately configured to upsell by eliminating all BTO options except for a memory upgrade. Even there, because you can't easily upgrade the RAM later, that design decision upsells you on the $200 16GB upgrade even if 8GB is enough for now...which it is for most folks. Most folks that own Macs already will know that their Macs last a long long time...as long as you aren't beachballing waiting for the disk or for memory to swap.
The fact is that the best way to future proof your iMac purchase today, assuming that it is designed so that you cannot easily upgrade your RAM or HDD later, is to max out your RAM and install a SSD as part of your BTO.
This is not a $200 upgrade option. This requires moving to the middle iMac tier in order to get the Fusion drive as a BTO option. The cost for that 21" iMac is $1949 for a 2.9 Ghz quad core i5, 16GB RAM and Fusion Drive.
At which point you go: Well hell, I can get the 2.9 Ghz quad core i5 27" iMac with the Fusion drive for $2049 and buy more RAM later when I really need it.
This isn't a conspiracy. This is good business. This is also why the Mini has no GPU.
There is no way in Apple's current line up to finesse your way around real hardware limitations without paying the upsell and the line up is absolutely brilliant.
Quote:
So Apple wil make more money if they don't allow their devices to have to be user-upgradable and yet the new 27" iMac is which means that your entire premise is flawed. It should also be pointed out that any other current or previous Mac that can be user-graded would also invalid your premise unless you wish to spin a tale that Apple has just now realized this.
Why on earth would you assert that? The point is that they deliberately make it so that you cannot save money on 3rd party enhancements (specifically RAM) without paying for an iMac with higher ASPs. That's not accidental or an afterthought. Apple doesn't DO that (accidents or afterthoughts) with their product line. If it's there it's engineered to be there. Sure, they can screw things up and miscalculate but the outcome "isn't accidental".
The existence of prior models that allowed certain technically capable folks to finesse their way around the product line doesn't invalidate anything. There has been an ongoing trend to deprecate that since the elimination of the last xMac (the 2003 $1299 MDD Powermac G4). Those days are in their final hours.
They can continue to make things less repairable but if costs are too high to order BTO upgrades, their margins might be fine for some higher end models but the lower end models might stagnate.
Just to be clear, you are saying that anyone who wants a 21.5" iMac is being forced to pay for a 27" do to some Montgomery Burns conspiracy that will get them into a 27" iMac, an iMac that won't even be out for weeks despite the 21.5" iMac being available. That makes more sense to you than Apple seeing the 21.5" iMac as more of a consumer device that is infrequently upgraded after market compared to the 27" iMac being a business-class workstation that is more frequently upgraded after market?
If what you say is true then they should have never made the 21.5" iMac at all so all iMac buyers would get the 27" model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Just to be clear, you are saying that anyone who wants a 21.5" iMac is being forced to pay for a 27" do to some Montgomery Burns conspiracy that will get them into a 27" iMac, an iMac that won't even be out for weeks despite the 21.5" iMac being available. That makes more sense to you than Apple seeing the 21.5" iMac as more of a consumer device that is infrequently upgraded after market compared to the 27" iMac being a business-class workstation that is more frequently upgraded after market?
If what you say is true then they should have never made the 21.5" iMac at all so all iMac buyers would get the 27" model.
Nope. Not saying that. I'm saying that Apple's product lineup is deliberately designed to make you either spend $$$ upgrading via BTO or spend $$$ upselling to the 27". Either way they make more money. Some small fraction of folks will buy the lowest end iMac or mini. Most will get upsold. Apple doesn't care if they upsell you to a $2000 21.5" iMac or a $2100 27" iMac.
You seem to have a problem with Apple's ability to make high margins with a high ASP and calling it a Montgomery Burns conspiracy. They aren't where they are by accident and they aren't incompetent...despite the current supply chain glitch with the iMacs.
The 27" iMac isn't a "business class workstation" nor is it getting upgraded after market either except for the RAM. Those are Mac Pros. iMacs are nice machines and neither is more or less "pro" than the other. The difference is that the 27" base model can get fusion without a costly bump to the mid tier so the cost delta is surprisingly small between the mid-grade 21" iMac and the 27" iMac. Apple has positioned the price/performance sweet spots to be at the higher end or at the very bottom end.
You have to be a real dumbass to get the 21.5" 2.9 Ghz Core i5 with 16GB RAM and Fusion ($1949) over the 27" 2.9 Ghz Core i5 with 16GB RAM and Fusion ($2049 + $40 for a 8GB RAM upgrade) for a $150 price delta. Especially since you can literally install new RAM in 10 minutes or less and it doesn't void your warranty AND you get a better GPU to boot.
Now the i7 21"iMac quite isn't as bad at $2150 since it's a $300 delta between that and the $2450 i7 BTO option (with Fusion) for the 27". But man you get a lot of performance for that $300. The 21.5" i7 is a comparatively a poor value.
The best bangs for the buck are the base $1300 21.5" iMac, $2050 Core i5 27" w/fusion and the $2600 3.4 Ghz i7 w/GTX 680 + Fusion 27"
For some reason I take it you think the 27" iMac (whatever config) is better than the 21.5" iMac (whatever config). Seems to me you're forgetting that some people think a 27" screen is way too large for their needs and or taste. Heck, I know quite a few people who wish the return of the 17" and yes, even the 15" screens.
Bigger isn't always better, especially outside of the States. Just consider the smaller houses in Europe, where Apple might not get a good foothold into the living room if they start selling a big Apple TV screen. Not that I think they will, but that's another matter.
I have a problem with upsell conspiracy that forces people to forego the 21.5" for the 27". How exactly does this scenario work? "Gee, I was going to buy the 21.5" iMac but since it would cost me $50 to $130 more than what Apple charges for pre-installed RAM upgrades I'm going to instead pay $600 more for the 27" iMac which is far too big for my needs." That sounds like a reasonable scenario to you? If so, then you might be Montgomery Burns.
Bottom line: Most people look at the size that suits their needs and then configure options accordingly.
So now people that have a 21.5" iMac are dumbasses? Shame on you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
That's strange; first you come across that you don't understand how and why Apple prices their products as they do, to me, and then you make a completely valid statement indicating, to me, that you do understand;
What? Just because I'm an avid fan of Apple doesn't mean I'm blind to how they price and position product to maximize my dollars spent. I'm also not going to whine when iFixIt gives an accurate assessment of user repairability and upgradeability. The trend is toward none.
Quote:
For some reason I take it you think the 27" iMac (whatever config) is better than the 21.5" iMac (whatever config). Seems to me you're forgetting that some people think a 27" screen is way too large for their needs and or taste. Heck, I know quite a few people who wish the return of the 17" and yes, even the 15" screens.
Bigger isn't always better, especially outside of the States. Just consider the smaller houses in Europe, where Apple might not get a good foothold into the living room if they start selling a big Apple TV screen. Not that I think they will, but that's another matter.
Yes. Whether you personally like 21" better than 27" is immaterial. The GPU is better in the 27" (660M vs 650M). The maximum supported RAM is higher (32GB vs 16GB). The ability to install your own RAM is better. The screen is both higher resolution (1920x1280 vs 2560x1440) and bigger.
As far as size for smaller homes or what not, that's a personal choice. From my perspective a 27" iMac that can double as a TV (Slingbox + XBMC) is as or more viable than a 21" iMac (or some idiotic 15" iMac...get a 13" MBA) and a 32" HDTV if space is at a real premium. European homes are no smaller than dorm rooms, apartments, RVs, boats or even a large number of US homes. My first house was a 1400 sq ft rancher which is the same size as the average house in Denmark. The last apartment I lived in was no more than 800 sq ft which is smaller than the average house in the UK (smallest in the EU).
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738
Given that you see 27" iMacs in RVs, boats, apartments, dorm rooms, etc the size of the 27" iMac is not that significant a factor. I'd probably go the 32" HDTV + mac mini + PS3 route but as I said, the 27" iMac is just a viable a build.