Estimated delivery times for Apple's 21.5" iMac begin slipping

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 108
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Who says they have production problems? No really, somebody prove it. It's all anonymous rumor.

    Since we go strictly by rumor here I hereby state unequivocally that the problem is a demand problem. Demand is far outstripping supply and THAT's why the shipping dates are going up. Now please prove me wrong.
  • Reply 22 of 108
    pik80pik80 Posts: 148member


    @razorpit That is a great point about the iMac eventually turning into Apple TV where being thin would be more important. That could be really good in the future but for current versions of the product strictly as a computer it doesn't make any sense. It is interesting to entertain the idea of a 50"-60" iMac hanging from your wall. It seems like the natural evolution for the product.


     


    @isaidso I am glad Cnet posted that review and are not just praising every move Apple makes. Apple can do better then this and they need to have pressure to move in that direction. Good for them.

  • Reply 23 of 108
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    pik80 wrote: »
    No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.

    1) "Already very thin" is subjective. When each iMac design first appeared after the swivel-head models they were all very thin for their time.

    2) Yes, the 21.5" iMac has a 2.5" drive instead of a 3.5" drive. It also doesn't have a way to easily change the RAM. Even when Apple made the battery internal on the MB and MBPs you could still get access to the RAM by removing 10-12 screws.

    3) Your initial comment mentioning upping the performance hence I focused on aspects that are increased with YoY updates, like the CPU. If it was a 3.5" HDD before you weren't going to expect a 4.0" HDD this year. Where is the upping?

    4) In Apple's defense, the performance of the Fusion Drive is upping the storage capacity performance over even a 10k HDD, which are impractical for an AIO, and it's doing it at a fraction of the cost of what a 1TB SSD would cost.

    5) In your defense, the lack of a 3.5" drive and lack of external access for RAM does make it a no go for me, which is why I am impatiently waiting for the 27" iMac to arrive, but I'm not the only customer and I'm certainly not a typical customer. I'm sure Apple knew when designing the new iMacs what they needed to include. Well, they could have made a gross error in judgment but if they don't know who is buying the 21.5" iMacs and what upgrades if any are being done after market then no one knows. I'd wager on Apple knowing these things.

    6) You've clarified your argument to mean a drop in performance from 7200 RPM to 5400 RPM. That's it! That's one thing drop in one area on one model that is easily corrected with the new Fusion Drive (which I recommend to everyone as I have been using it for months now in my 2010 13" MBP).

    7) If you really wanted a 21.5" iMac with a 7200 RPM drive with no SSD then you have to go with an older model or use an eternal drive. Every single revision Apple (and every other vendor) will alienate some customer in an attempt to sell to other customers. If the aforementioned setup is what you were dreaming of you are SOL, at least with this model. I personally think the 27" model was the focus and that the next revision of the 21.5" iMac could get RAM access back.

    8) Here are some other things to consider as Apple's reasoning for the new design:
    • Will attract a wider range of buyers from being iconic (actually we discussed this but wanted to restate it. Consider the first flatscreen iMac with the swivel head. It was a doomed body which doesn't work for any computer component and was a bitch to fix or upgrade)
    • Less material used means cheaper to build (which may not be the case since there are production issues at play)
    • Lighter weight (means less cost in shipping)
    • Reduced volume (means less cost for shipping and they can keep more in the stock room)
    • Relative low volume of unit sales makes it a good production model to test and perfect new techniques that will find their way into other products (which could be why there are production problems. The original MBA was secretly the first unibody aluminum chassis and now we find it in the MB (as polycarb) MBP, iMac, Mac mini, apple remote, iPads, iPhone and iPods. I'm not sure they do any pressed metal or molds in any of their aluminum products)
  • Reply 24 of 108
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    pik80 wrote: »
    @razorpit That is a great point about the iMac eventually turning into Apple TV where being thin would be more important.

    Huh? How is important for a TV to be really thin but not a big ass computer display?
  • Reply 25 of 108


    Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

    I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow…


     


    I challenge this so hard…





    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Huh? How is important for a TV to be really thin but not a big ass computer display?


     


    We're still using LCDs. BACDs don't come into the picture for a while. image

  • Reply 26 of 108
    pik80pik80 Posts: 148member


    I have seen those ads on TV for the razor thin TVs and think that makes sense since you don't want something terribly thick protruding from the wall. If it is sitting on your desk you won't even notice it's tickness until you have to turn the computer on it's side to access the ports. Also if the iMac (or whatever they would call their TV) was 60" it would have enough specs and might be able to get around it performance short comings of the iMac with the smaller screen. Just look at how much better the performance gets from going from 21" to 27".

     

  • Reply 27 of 108


    Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

    If it is sitting on your desk you won't even notice it's thickness…




    Really? You think I want nine inches of my desk taken up by a giant rectangular prism? It absolutely matters.






    Also if the iMac (or whatever they would call their TV)…



     


    Obviously not 'iMac'…






    …was 60" it would have enough specs…



     


    See, I was just saying the other day that my computer doesn't wear enough glasses for my liking.






    …and might be able to get around it performance short comings of the iMac with the smaller screen.



     


    What "shortcomings"?!


     


    60" can't inherently give you "enough specs"; size has nothing to do with that! You think because the LCD panel is larger they'll shove more processors and more storage behind it?! No.






    Just look at how much better the performance gets from going from 21" to 27".



     


    That's far less for reasons of space than you'd imagine.

  • Reply 28 of 108
    pik80pik80 Posts: 148member


    ""Already very thin" is subjective. When each iMac design first appeared after the swivel-head models they were all very thin for their time."


    There was a point when iMacs where thick like you mentioned but Apple needs to be the judge of when something is thin enough. Remember we are talking about desktops here not laptops, thin is not the number one thing people are looking for. If it were then you might as well get a laptop and gain the portability with your thiness.


     


    "Every single revision Apple (and every other vendor) will alienate some customer in an attempt to sell to other customers."


    Not if they have a wide enough hardware selection. Look at Apple's hardware line up from eight years ago:


     


    Low end:


    mini, iMac


     


    Mid range:


    PowerMac G4


     


    Mid to high:


    PowerMac G5


     


    Back then they had a product for most people. Since this time they killed off the all their mid range machines and jacked up the price of their high end systems nearly $1,000. Now are product choices are low end and crazy high end. Very disappointing.

  • Reply 29 of 108


    Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

    There was a point when iMacs where thick like you mentioned but Apple needs to be the judge of when something is thin enough.


     


    Why do you get to be the judge of when engineering stops?






    If it were then you might as well get a laptop and gain the portability with your thiness.



     


    Know of any 21" or 27" laptops that use desktop processors?






    Not if they have a wide enough hardware selection



     


    Now you finally understand. Apple couldn't care less about that.

  • Reply 30 of 108
    pik80pik80 Posts: 148member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Really? You think I want nine inches of my desk taken up by a giant rectangular prism? It absolutely matters.



    The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about? It all has to do with finding balance. Yes, the first version of this style of iMac, the iMac G5, was a bit porky and benefited from being slimmed down. But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.

  • Reply 31 of 108

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pik80 View Post


    The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about? It all has to do with finding balance. Yes, the first version of this style of iMac, the iMac G5, was a bit porky and benefited from being slimmed down. But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.



    30 Feb, in a non-leap year.


     


    Cheers

  • Reply 32 of 108
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    lkrupp wrote:
    Since we go strictly by rumor here I hereby state unequivocally that the problem is a demand problem. Demand is far outstripping supply and THAT's why the shipping dates are going up. Now please prove me wrong.

    It was delayed before they even had it for sale and there was no preorder. Demand outstripping supply is a likely outcome if there's a supply problem.

    They are reported to be having issues with friction-stir welding and display yields. The friction-stir welding might help them cut down on materials:

    http://aaronmiller.in/blog/2012/why-friction-stir-welding

    It could also partly explain the new shape. They were milling the enclosure before, which cuts out a fair amount of material. Although aluminum is cheap, they are making 1.5 million desktops per quarter x 5kg so 7500 metric tons and aluminum is $2000/ton so $15m in material. That's only what they are left with though. They said they cut keyboards out of the iMacs so that uses some of it but the rest (2/3+?) has to be recycled.

    If they can cut just two thin sheets and weld them together, that whole recycling part could be reduced considerably and they can probably make the sheets thinner. They obviously haven't made them cheaper yet but perhaps it will pay off in the long run. It's perhaps too much of a stretch but the technique was possibly used to build Steve's boat and if they'd seen the process in action, decided to work it into their manufacturing process down the line.

    The technique could be applied to the Mini too. It would just be a thin strip for the edge bent twice and a thin rounded square, then just weld it together. Rather than carving it out of a block, they could build loads out of a single block. That's bound to save some costs shipping the materials back for recycling.
  • Reply 33 of 108
    vaelianvaelian Posts: 446member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Who says they have production problems? No really, somebody prove it. It's all anonymous rumor.

    Since we go strictly by rumor here I hereby state unequivocally that the problem is a demand problem. Demand is far outstripping supply and THAT's why the shipping dates are going up. Now please prove me wrong.

    Demand also "outstrips" supply in the face of production problems, which makes your conclusion a non-sequitor, and thus, wrong. To ask for people to prove you wrong is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
  • Reply 34 of 108
    pik80 wrote: »
    But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.

    You're not making much sense. The Fusion Drive is faster than a 7200 RPM HD and doesn't add any thickness to the enclosure. So if you care about performance in the 21", that's the option for you. The new iMacs are slimmer and faster for those who care about HD performance, and also slimmer for those who don't care so much about performance.
  • Reply 35 of 108


    Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

    The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about?


     


    How silly it would be to make the iMac thicker. What are YOU talking about?


     



    But at some point they need to ask when do we switch from slimming the product down and start to focus more on making up for it's slow performance.


     


    Given that it doesn't have slow performance, and in fact gets faster with each thinner revision, I think they can keep doing what they're doing without wasting our desk space on thick computers.

  • Reply 36 of 108
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    johndoe98 wrote: »
    You're not making much sense. The Fusion Drive is faster than a 7200 RPM HD and doesn't add any thickness to the enclosure. So if you care about performance in the 21", that's the option for you. The new iMacs are slimmer and faster for those who care about HD performance, and also slimmer for those who don't care so much about performance.

    Here is BareFeats testing on the new iMac against machines with and without Fusion Drive. Note this is the 27" iMac so the drive is 3.5" and therefore 7200 RPM.

  • Reply 37 of 108

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pik80 View Post


    No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.



     






    The 21" model with the fusion drive will smoke any 7800 or other drive. You don't have to settle for the slower drive.

  • Reply 38 of 108

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Here is BareFeats testing on the new iMac against machines with and without Fusion Drive. Note this is the 27" iMac so the drive is 3.5" and therefore 7200 RPM.





    Useless benchmark. I can't wait to get my 27" iMac. I'm going to do the first (and ONLY) review on a 3TB fusion drive talking about drive performance AFTER it's been filled up with well over 128GB of apps and the drive is actually forced to pull up rarely used apps that aren't already sitting on the SSD!!!


     


    Every fusion drive benchmark out there simply puts a few apps on their iMac and runs a test. This is useless because the SSD can hold 128GB. That means if you have less than 128GB of stuff on your hard drive (which happens to be the case with all these benchmarks), it's all gonna be on the SSD. Of course your benchmarks are gonna run fast! It's not pulling anything from the HDD.


     


    They don't actually fill up their computers with 1TB of apps and THEN run the test like I'm going to do. And my test is actually going to run intensive apps that aren't going to be touched in a long time. This will be a true test of the fusion drive performance.

  • Reply 39 of 108

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Well it certainly can't be a demand issue. I mean c|net is telling us the new Mac is only compelling for "Mac loyalists", and we know there's not many of those around anymore. image



     


    Amazing screen cap. Shows the clear editorial independance of C|net. I mean, who else has dared shake the Apple theocracy and tell the truth on the iPhone 5, the iPad, the iMac and warned that MBA isn't up the Lenovo's ultrabook?


     


     


    Ahemf.

  • Reply 40 of 108

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post




    Useless benchmark. I can't wait to get my 27" iMac. I'm going to do the first (and ONLY) review on a 3TB fusion drive talking about drive performance AFTER it's been filled up with well over 128GB of apps and the drive is actually forced to pull up rarely used apps that aren't already sitting on the SSD!!!


     


    Every fusion drive benchmark out there simply puts a few apps on their iMac and runs a test. This is useless because the SSD can hold 128GB. That means if you have less than 128GB of stuff on your hard drive (which happens to be the case with all these benchmarks), it's all gonna be on the SSD. Of course your benchmarks are gonna run fast! It's not pulling anything from the HDD.


     


    They don't actually fill up their computers with 1TB of apps and THEN run the test like I'm going to do. And my test is actually going to run intensive apps that aren't going to be touched in a long time. This will be a true test of the fusion drive performance.





    That's actually wise. Even on the MBA, pulling from a 100% flash disk can feel slow (but it might be Mountain Lion that sucks). Switching from Office to Photoshop to XCode to Firefox to Excel to Eclipse -- possibly to EVE if I feel so inclined -- yes, I do that routinely) can feel annoyingly slow.

Sign In or Register to comment.