The cost different between Aluminum and Plastic casing are minimal in the grand scheme of things. The Problem is Intel doesn't offer any low cost CPU that comes with a good enough GPU for Apple to use.
On a $1299 iMac, at BOM cost of $900, Over 30% of that belongs to Intel.
hence the importance of the ASeries chip in the grand [4 year] scheme of things. It's the only leverage against the intel tax.
Lower prices on an iMac really are only derived at the moment on the LED screen, Disk, and the memory. Moving to the high end haswell may help in making the cooling less complicated and/or the entire unit lighter (40-$50 of the cost of the unit is shipping[every piece multiple times], and less weight/volume the lower the net ship price… An old Sun Micro Rep said, at the desktop level and volume discounts, you literally are paying by the pound…*).
(*hence building in the USA for some units is cost effective IFF the heavy stuff [Power supply, case, glass] are made in the US as well, given the time humans [wages*benefits] spend per unit assembling has shrunk so much.)
Do you mean the way Apple was suppose to launch a low-cost iPhone? A bunch of analysts and websites reporting what those analysts said predicted that. It got the stock market all excited because, for some odd reason, idiots there cared more about market share than actual profits. Then when the reality that Apple doesn't compete in discount, low profit margin markets became a reality and there was no low-cost iPhone, the sheep panicked and sold Apple shares, causing the stock to tumble, costing investors billions of dollars and harming Apple's reputation.
When you, Mr. Hughes, report one analyst's opinion as if it were fact (look at the headline--no mention that it's merely the opinion of one analyst who has NO inside information from Apple, it's just a wild guess), you are encouraging sheep to misunderstand what Apple does and set up the stock for another tumble. You, personally, are potentially costing stockholders billions of dollars. Do you really think that's right?
I'm not saying you shouldn't report what an analyst says, but report it in context. Make clear, in the headline that an "Analyst Guesses that There will be a "budget" iMac Next Year." In your first paragraph make clear that this runs contrary to the history of what Apple does. This is called "objective reporting."
And remember, "analyst" is a term that simply means "carnival fortune teller." The only difference is that the analyst isn't as accurate. Nor as entertaining.
If it breaks, buy another one for $1. Or would you rather buy a $200 hard drive and replace it yourself? Like I said- $1 is an idiotic comment. Most of us are logical people- we don't need asinine exaggerations to prove a point.
It isn't asinine at all to reject a concept. By buying an iMac you promote the concept of disposable, non maintainable, electronics. Nothing logical about that at all. Even Apples Mini is far more accessible that the current crop of iMac as is most of the laptop lineup. That must of took considerable effort on Apples part because the desktop provides far more design freedom that a laptop.
Sometime the wise man avoid the temptation of the cheap to stick to things he values. In this regard I wouldn't buy the current crop of iMacs even if they only charged a dollar.
It isn't asinine at all to reject a concept. By buying an iMac you promote the concept of disposable, non maintainable, electronics. Nothing logical about that at all.
It actually is completely logical. If nobody upgrades their computer anyway, building in upgradeability or repairability leads to extra costs and resources. The computer has to be bigger, heavier, harder to ship, use more metal pieces, separate connectors that fail, etc.
To give you an example, like most cars, the transaxle on a Prius is uneconomical to repair when it wears out. Now trucks use much larger rear-wheel drive transmissions and separate differentials. Those can be easily replaced. However, they are physically larger and heavier, thus burn more fuel. Since most people trash their cars after 150k miles, the non-repairable, lighter design has an overall smaller impact.
hence the importance of the ASeries chip in the grand [4 year] scheme of things. It's the only leverage against the intel tax.
A series is still a long ways from pressuring Intel when it comes to suitable chips for the desktop. This is where I'm really hoping that AMD will help out and actually push out a more competitive chip. AMD use to be leverage against Intel, now it is a tougher sell. Haswell, via the Iris GPU, has almost eclipsed AMD so now putting an AMD chip in a Mini is even a hard sell.
Lower prices on an iMac really are only derived at the moment on the LED screen, Disk, and the memory.
I'd have to add, the mechanical design. New approaches there might help costs significantly.
Moving to the high end haswell may help in making the cooling less complicated and/or the entire unit lighter (40-$50 of the cost of the unit is shipping[every piece multiple times], and less weight/volume the lower the net ship price… An old Sun Micro Rep said, at the desktop level and volume discounts, you literally are paying by the pound…*).
Actually when it comes down to it that is the way many industries work! After a certain point it is a matter of weight. The semiconductor business usually charges by area but in the end that is almost the same thing as charging by weight.
(*hence building in the USA for some units is cost effective IFF the heavy stuff [Power supply, case, glass] are made in the US as well, given the time humans [wages*benefits] spend per unit assembling has shrunk so much.)
In the context of the Mac Pro, it really doesn't look like a machine designed for manufacturability. I'm not sure why that wasn't stressed in the design. In any event the move off shore was very much about exploiting many free hands in a lax worker safety environment. The funny thing was or is that was decades ago now, but people still focus on that aspect of off shoring, now a days many of those off shore factories are highly automated, so even automation doesn't protect American manufacturing. As you note shipping becomes a big factor.
I have to replace multiple systems and I'd be fine with going the mini route and probably updating more often if Apple would put out a smaller thunderbolt display. Maybe 21.5 of the iMac? I don't need or want the 27 for most of my applications.
Do you mean the way Apple was suppose to launch a low-cost iPhone? A bunch of analysts and websites reporting what those analysts said predicted that. It got the stock market all excited because, for some odd reason, idiots there cared more about market share than actual profits. Then when the reality that Apple doesn't compete in discount, low profit margin markets became a reality and there was no low-cost iPhone, the sheep panicked and sold Apple shares, causing the stock to tumble, costing investors billions of dollars and harming Apple's reputation.
Stock manipulation and the fact that the markets are full of idiots has nothing to do with Apple. This doesn't harm Apple as much as it harms the reputation of the Wall Street manipulators.
Let's face it manipulators are exactly what these people are. They try to influence Apple by getting public support behind them. Thankfully the public is into these sorts of low life's.
When you, Mr. Hughes, report one analyst's opinion as if it were fact (look at the headline--no mention that it's merely the opinion of one analyst who has NO inside information from Apple, it's just a wild guess), you are encouraging sheep to misunderstand what Apple does and set up the stock for another tumble. You, personally, are potentially costing stockholders billions of dollars. Do you really think that's right?
Ethics in reporting went out of style eight years ago when the media unethically promoted Obama into the White House. Honesty, respectability and general acceptance of the media and especially the news media has taken a huge dive of late. In general people no longer trust what passes for reporting anymore.
Sad really because we have things happening in Washington right now that are worst than Watergate but nobody cares anymore or maybe more so journalist look the other way as it is their guy in office.
I'm not saying you shouldn't report what an analyst says, but report it in context.
Appleinsider would do the world a bit of good and simply not report at all what these guys are saying. That would be the responsible thing to do.
Make clear, in the headline that an "Analyst Guesses that There will be a "budget" iMac Next Year." In your first paragraph make clear that this runs contrary to the history of what Apple does. This is called "objective reporting."
"the history of what Apple does", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Apple didn't do a low cost iPhone because it doesn't need to yet. That doesn't apply to the desktop line up which has suffered a massive sales decline this year. That is partly due to terrible design in the iMac and partly due to declining market conditions, but largely due to very expensive machines relative to the rest of the industry. Unlike the iPhone the Mac Lineup needs machines that represent a better value than the current crop of machines. So any history you may think Apple has doesn't apply here.
In a nut shell it doesn't take a fortune teller to realize that Apple has huge problems with the Mac lineup. All three of Apples desktop machines are a joke right now. Apple realizes this and that is why we are getting a new Mac Pro soon. Apples pricing strategy will determine if that Mac Pro remains a joke. The iMac got revved and remains a joke. The only other machine left is the Mini which honest I believe has to be replaced with something different to tweak people's interests yet again.
It is interesting to contrast the desktop line up with Apples AIRs which are anything but a joke. AIRs are apparently still doing Very well sales wise. Laptop wise though the MBP sales have tanked, this again due to offering a terrible value. In other words the MBP pice doesn't match up with the shipping feature set.
As to this article and title, budget seems to be an inflammatory word on these forums. That is sad because I don't see Apple lowering its margins on such a machine. Rather I see them throwing new tech at the machine to effectively lower the price. That can be via new processor technology, memory technology, mechanical technology and maybe feature sets. Contrary to popular opinion they can do a lot for the case to adjust costs. On the electronics side high integration Intel solutions next year could lower costs and shrink the motherboard as would more soldered on components. The day of a credit card sized iMac logic board may be a ways off but that doesn't me and considerable shrinkage can't happen. Apple may get a completely functional motherboard out the door for $3-400.
And remember, "analyst" is a term that simply means "carnival fortune teller." The only difference is that the analyst isn't as accurate. Nor as entertaining.
Which brings up the question of why AI even bothers posting this crap. Let's face it even DED's reporting is more digestible than this crap and I can't read all of DEDs articles. In the end there is a big difference between understanding where technology is going and the fortune telling of these analyst.
The most interesting thing here isn't Apple but rather Intel. They are hurting from the general downturn in i86 sales. So they have two options to maintain profitability. One is to raise prices to support smaller volumes on expensive production lines. The other is to pack more functionality into a chip yet bettering prices to spur sales against low end ARM based systems. The second option is very tough but I think Intel has no choice but to off very competitive SoC next year. A7 might not do the trick this year, but Apple won't be far away from an uprated and improved 64 bit ARM solution. The thought of loosing Apple even partly as a customer must scare Intel stiff. Thus I can see Intel and Apple collaborating closely on a chip designed to offer up a low cost iMac. By the way that low cost iMac might only be a $800 machine which would still make it expensive in many eyes.
It actually is completely logical. If nobody upgrades their computer anyway, building in upgradeability or repairability leads to extra costs and resources. The computer has to be bigger, heavier, harder to ship, use more metal pieces, separate connectors that fail, etc.
Err actually I think you underestimate just how many people do repair their computers, either DIY or in a shop. It is a large enough market that I know of guys locally making a good living at it.
You might have a point if the iMac shipped as a single board machine, but it doesn't. Rather it ships with a power supply and a hard drive a separate items, even the RAM is a separate component. Non of these are easy to get to in the small machine. The hard drive and power supply are known failure points in all computers so yeah sealing them up inside a machine like the iMac is asinine.
To give you an example, like most cars, the transaxle on a Prius is uneconomical to repair when it wears out.
Maybe, maybe not, but that transaxle can be replaced and frankly it isn't much worst to do than most other cars of a similar design.
Now trucks use much larger rear-wheel drive transmissions and separate differentials. Those can be easily replaced. However, they are physically larger and heavier, thus burn more fuel. Since most people trash their cars after 150k miles, the non-repairable, lighter design has an overall smaller impact.
That is a bit of a stretch. First trucks are often ran reliable for much longer than the common car. Second cars with poor durability don't stand up to public opinion, Chevys Saturn was a good example here. Saturn being a nice idea, but the details are in the implementation and in that regard the machine was junk.
In any event we are talking about Macs here. They common refrain I here is that Macs last longer. That statement is debatable in and of itself but it can be agreed that on average people keep and use Macs for a longer period of time than the average PC, they do that by repairing them as needed when and if needed. At some point that means a third party facility, which frankly charge a bit more for an iMac repair due to the issues surrounding working on iMacs.
I just not buy the idea that a non repairable iMac, or maybe I should say a high cost to repair iMac, doesn't have an impact. I see the impact as very negative in a number of ways. For one it encourages consumers to buy long term warranties which are of debatable value. The second consideration is that disposable electronics do impact the environment, either through contamination of one sort or the other or via excess production to replace viable units that have failed prematurely. The third problem is the lack of customization, in this case adding RAM or internal storage that can effectively extend the life of any machine.
To look at this another way, I've never voted for a democrat in my life. So I don't consider myself an ignorant liberal out of touch with reality, however that doesn't mean the environment isn't important to me. The iMac in my mind puts up to many roadblocks that prevent owners from being responsible users of electronics. I actually detest the disposable mentality that much of society has these days and really wonder about the people that buy things like iPhones every year. It is sad really, I've seen lawn mowers thrown out because someone was too lazy to change the spark plug. Is that really the type of world we want to promote?
You might have a point if the iMac shipped as a single board machine, but it doesn't. Rather it ships with a power supply and a hard drive a separate items, even the RAM is a separate component.
Power supply is a perfect example. If you've been in an iMac you know the power supply is an open-frame design. If it was user-accessible, they would have to add metal to prevent shocks like in ordinary PCs. The extra casing then requires a separate fan for proper ventilation. So you've now had to build millions of extra metal cases and fans. Keep in mind that fans have a large environmental impact because they require copper windings, precision bearings and also rare-earth magnets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
That is a bit of a stretch. First trucks are often ran reliable for much longer than the common car.
See, you have to qualify your statement. Trucks actually last a shorter time on the road, just look at the age of fleet vehicles versus personal cars. They drive many more miles over that same period. The economics then favor replacement of powertrain components because they wear out before the frame rusts, plastic hoses fail, seats fall apart, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
For one it encourages consumers to buy long term warranties which are of debatable value.
Extended warranties actually promote more durable products by shifting the costs on to the manufacturer. If the product doesn't break, they profit. If the customer is footing the repair bill, they profit when it breaks. This was the subject of much study in the field of airplane engines. It was found that manufacturer service agreements had more direct cash costs, but led to a overall savings because engines were better maintained and more reliable: there was no incentive for the airline to put off work, and the manufacturer didn't want to foot the bill for emergency repairs. Another example is printers where you lease by the page. For some reason when they foot the bill for replacing the toner and ink, the cartridges need a lot less replacing.
The cost-benefit tradeoff is something that requires analysis on a whole population basis. Being patriotic or feeling like you should repair something yourself may benefit you, but on average is detrimental to the overall use of resources.
Freaking… what in the world is the problem with Apple that they won’t do network attached iTunes Libraries?! I mean, yeah, they want to sell more Macs, but you’d NEED a Mac to format said iTunes Library and add content to it in the first place. Just let me plug a hard drive into my AirPort Extreme and push content to an Apple TV…
That would be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
In order to appeal to the school market, I'd say Apple needs a $799 iMac or a Mac mini plus display combination for the same or less.
But apple doesn't cater to the low end, and that tends to be what schools buy. So unless it is a machine with last year's or older specs, it will have to be crippled in some way (display, memory, HDD, etc.) for Apple to hold their margins.
Years ago the imac started around $1000 with a 17" display or something around there. Education pricing was typically $100 off. It could happen, but I don't know if it's likely. Any kind of integrated graphics would work for an entry model. It doesn't have to use iris pro.
Power supply is a perfect example. If you've been in an iMac you know the power supply is an open-frame design. If it was user-accessible, they would have to add metal to prevent shocks like in ordinary PCs.
It also means the power supply is cheaper to build so it makes replacement when it does fail more rational.
The extra casing then requires a separate fan for proper ventilation. So you've now had to build millions of extra metal cases and fans. Keep in mind that fans have a large environmental impact because they require copper windings, precision bearings and also rare-earth magnets.
See, you have to qualify your statement. Trucks actually last a shorter time on the road, just look at the age of fleet vehicles versus personal cars. They drive many more miles over that same period. The economics then favor replacement of powertrain components because they wear out before the frame rusts, plastic hoses fail, seats fall apart, etc.
Fleet vehicles don't even come into this discussion. If you look at the age of all commercial vehicles you will see a different story.
Extended warranties actually promote more durable products by shifting the costs on to the manufacturer.
Baloney! The history of extended warranties is pretty clear, the primary motivation is a separate income stream for the manufacture. This is especially the case with electronics where infant mortality is the primary cause of system failures. For the most part extended warranties are pure profit for the companies offering them in the electronics industry.
If the product doesn't break, they profit. If the customer is footing the repair bill, they profit when it breaks. This was the subject of much study in the field of airplane engines. It was found that manufacturer service agreements had more direct cash costs, but led to a overall savings because engines were better maintained and more reliable: there was no incentive for the airline to put off work, and the manufacturer didn't want to foot the bill for emergency repairs.
What does the maintenance of an aircraft engine have to do with this discussion?
Another example is printers where you lease by the page. For some reason when they foot the bill for replacing the toner and ink, the cartridges need a lot less replacing.
The cost-benefit tradeoff is something that requires analysis on a whole population basis. Being patriotic or feeling like you should repair something yourself may benefit you, but on average is detrimental to the overall use of resources.
Your mind has been corrupted! Any business I've worked with always repairs its capital equipment, especially if that equipment is critical to its business. A copier or printer is nothing more than a service like having a janitor come in to clean the floors.
The problem is the display. In these years of economic crisis, people return to the (wise) behavior of not throwing away stuff that works. If you bought an awesome display two years ago, why should you replace it if you want a powerful Mac? The options for a display-less Mac are either the Mini (with lower specs than the iMac) or the Mac Pro (usually priced to another market segment).
Going for a "low cost" iMac will be just a Mac Mini with an attached display, and that will be another failure.
The way to go is to release the top-of-the-line iMac, with the fastest CPU and the fastest GPU but without a display. That's what computer users wish today.
The problem is the display. In these years of economic crisis, people return to the (wise) behavior of not throwing away stuff that works. If you bought an awesome display two years ago, why should you replace it if you want a powerful Mac?
I get the feeling that you’ve asked this before and ignored the multiple times you’ve been told the iMac functions as a standalone display for exactly this purpose…
Maybe I’m wrong, but someone keeps asking it, so I apologize if it wasn’t you.
The way to go is not an xMac, or Apple would have done it.
I get the feeling that you’ve asked this before and ignored the multiple times you’ve been told the iMac functions as a standalone display for exactly this purpose…
Maybe I’m wrong, but someone keeps asking it, so I apologize if it wasn’t you.
The way to go is not an xMac, or Apple would have done it.
I believe the iMac AIO concept is outside what the market demands nowadays, but I've no idea if I'm the person you mention. Anyway, your solution doesn't fix the problem: if you have a relatively new and big display already (and many folks have it because it's been one of the trends these years), the only way of not throwing it away is to use it for dual head. Being forced to get a new display when you have a (perhaps) greater one is nonsense nowadays.
It's also nonsense to lower the performance specs of the iMac. Computer users need performance. The ones who don't need performance have already moved to tablets.
I see the market message quite clear: if I want a computer, I want a powerful one (otherwise I'd get an iPad). But reasonably priced, and without stuff I already have. And the display is one thing most folks have already.
EDIT: get real, Apple uses the iMac display for scaling the product line. In other words: "you want a 4GB discrete GPU? Well, great, just also get a big display from us". They scale the product line by increasing the price adding stuff you don't need. This mechanism was fine when there were no tablets. But nowadays people who don't need a powerful Mac, get an iPad. Powerful configurations cannot come with unneeded stuff any longer. This way of scaling the product line isn't valid anymore.
1. You alone say -- with absolute confidence and certainty -- that the 5c has "failed". Do you know Apple's internal strategy? Its sales numbers for the new handset? Whether or not the device is meeting Apple's expectations? No you do not. Maintaining good stock on them doesn't equate to failure. Assumption is not the same as fact. Get that?
2. It's the 'second-tier' model. No different price or position than last year's second-tier model. Instead of continuing the iPhone 5 unchanged, they differentiated it from the top-tier model (and lowered costs) by changing the casing. Introduced something new and fun to the model line. You haven't touched one, obviously. They are neither "budget" nor "cheap" construction.
3. Yours isn't an argument, it's "contrariness". If you can't see it, that's a different matter.
The answer to 1) would be seen in cuts in production, and high inventory. We will actually know on Oct 28th when Apple will release their results for september, the phrase to listen for is "we ended the quarter with X weeks of forward looking inventory".
Anyway, your solution doesn’t fix the problem: if you have a relatively new and big display already…
This is neither a problem nor a concern for anyone. Really, it isn’t. And they don’t have a greater one if they’re just now buying an iMac. They have the greater one after having purchased the iMac.
…Apple uses the iMac display for scaling the product line.
For offering two display sizes, you mean.
In other words: "you want a 4GB discrete GPU? Well, great, just also get a big display from us". They scale the product line by increasing the price adding stuff you don't need. Powerful configurations cannot come with unneeded stuff any longer.
Then don’t buy that stuff. Should be pretty simple, right? Do you really want a terrible CPU and moderately good GPU? No, you want a good CPU and moderately good GPU.
This way of scaling the product line isn't valid anymore.
Well, obviously not. Since they just. keep. selling. more.
Apple definitely has to adjust prices in order to survive. Android and Windows devices will eventually bring Apple down if adjustments are not made. On the same tech note, the list with the best-selling games shows interesting things. I am exited! http://t.co/qFpOWJbfyD
Nope. The display in the iMac is used to scale all the desktop product line: If the iMac had low performance specs, its price should be low, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify a higher price by adding a display. OTOH, if the iMac had no display, it would be nonsense to ask $2500 for an i7 with a good GPU and SSD. It's the display what lets Apple ask $2500 for that configuration.
So, Apple scales the desktop product line by making the midrange machine an AIO. If you want a midrange, you pay more, with the justification that you also get a display which you didn't need.
But this way of scaling the product line is no longer valid.
It's not a rare personal view. A lot more people share my views.
Comments
The cost different between Aluminum and Plastic casing are minimal in the grand scheme of things. The Problem is Intel doesn't offer any low cost CPU that comes with a good enough GPU for Apple to use.
On a $1299 iMac, at BOM cost of $900, Over 30% of that belongs to Intel.
hence the importance of the ASeries chip in the grand [4 year] scheme of things. It's the only leverage against the intel tax.
Lower prices on an iMac really are only derived at the moment on the LED screen, Disk, and the memory. Moving to the high end haswell may help in making the cooling less complicated and/or the entire unit lighter (40-$50 of the cost of the unit is shipping[every piece multiple times], and less weight/volume the lower the net ship price… An old Sun Micro Rep said, at the desktop level and volume discounts, you literally are paying by the pound…*).
(*hence building in the USA for some units is cost effective IFF the heavy stuff [Power supply, case, glass] are made in the US as well, given the time humans [wages*benefits] spend per unit assembling has shrunk so much.)
When you, Mr. Hughes, report one analyst's opinion as if it were fact (look at the headline--no mention that it's merely the opinion of one analyst who has NO inside information from Apple, it's just a wild guess), you are encouraging sheep to misunderstand what Apple does and set up the stock for another tumble. You, personally, are potentially costing stockholders billions of dollars. Do you really think that's right?
I'm not saying you shouldn't report what an analyst says, but report it in context. Make clear, in the headline that an "Analyst Guesses that There will be a "budget" iMac Next Year." In your first paragraph make clear that this runs contrary to the history of what Apple does. This is called "objective reporting."
And remember, "analyst" is a term that simply means "carnival fortune teller." The only difference is that the analyst isn't as accurate. Nor as entertaining.
LOL What was the original iMac made up of?
A similar material to the original iPhone, but in a different Form Factor.
It isn't asinine at all to reject a concept. By buying an iMac you promote the concept of disposable, non maintainable, electronics. Nothing logical about that at all. Even Apples Mini is far more accessible that the current crop of iMac as is most of the laptop lineup. That must of took considerable effort on Apples part because the desktop provides far more design freedom that a laptop.
Sometime the wise man avoid the temptation of the cheap to stick to things he values. In this regard I wouldn't buy the current crop of iMacs even if they only charged a dollar.
It isn't asinine at all to reject a concept. By buying an iMac you promote the concept of disposable, non maintainable, electronics. Nothing logical about that at all.
It actually is completely logical. If nobody upgrades their computer anyway, building in upgradeability or repairability leads to extra costs and resources. The computer has to be bigger, heavier, harder to ship, use more metal pieces, separate connectors that fail, etc.
To give you an example, like most cars, the transaxle on a Prius is uneconomical to repair when it wears out. Now trucks use much larger rear-wheel drive transmissions and separate differentials. Those can be easily replaced. However, they are physically larger and heavier, thus burn more fuel. Since most people trash their cars after 150k miles, the non-repairable, lighter design has an overall smaller impact.
I have to replace multiple systems and I'd be fine with going the mini route and probably updating more often if Apple would put out a smaller thunderbolt display. Maybe 21.5 of the iMac? I don't need or want the 27 for most of my applications.
Let's face it manipulators are exactly what these people are. They try to influence Apple by getting public support behind them. Thankfully the public is into these sorts of low life's. Ethics in reporting went out of style eight years ago when the media unethically promoted Obama into the White House. Honesty, respectability and general acceptance of the media and especially the news media has taken a huge dive of late. In general people no longer trust what passes for reporting anymore.
Sad really because we have things happening in Washington right now that are worst than Watergate but nobody cares anymore or maybe more so journalist look the other way as it is their guy in office. Appleinsider would do the world a bit of good and simply not report at all what these guys are saying. That would be the responsible thing to do. "the history of what Apple does", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Apple didn't do a low cost iPhone because it doesn't need to yet. That doesn't apply to the desktop line up which has suffered a massive sales decline this year. That is partly due to terrible design in the iMac and partly due to declining market conditions, but largely due to very expensive machines relative to the rest of the industry. Unlike the iPhone the Mac Lineup needs machines that represent a better value than the current crop of machines. So any history you may think Apple has doesn't apply here.
In a nut shell it doesn't take a fortune teller to realize that Apple has huge problems with the Mac lineup. All three of Apples desktop machines are a joke right now. Apple realizes this and that is why we are getting a new Mac Pro soon. Apples pricing strategy will determine if that Mac Pro remains a joke. The iMac got revved and remains a joke. The only other machine left is the Mini which honest I believe has to be replaced with something different to tweak people's interests yet again.
It is interesting to contrast the desktop line up with Apples AIRs which are anything but a joke. AIRs are apparently still doing Very well sales wise. Laptop wise though the MBP sales have tanked, this again due to offering a terrible value. In other words the MBP pice doesn't match up with the shipping feature set.
As to this article and title, budget seems to be an inflammatory word on these forums. That is sad because I don't see Apple lowering its margins on such a machine. Rather I see them throwing new tech at the machine to effectively lower the price. That can be via new processor technology, memory technology, mechanical technology and maybe feature sets. Contrary to popular opinion they can do a lot for the case to adjust costs. On the electronics side high integration Intel solutions next year could lower costs and shrink the motherboard as would more soldered on components. The day of a credit card sized iMac logic board may be a ways off but that doesn't me and considerable shrinkage can't happen. Apple may get a completely functional motherboard out the door for $3-400.
Which brings up the question of why AI even bothers posting this crap. Let's face it even DED's reporting is more digestible than this crap and I can't read all of DEDs articles. In the end there is a big difference between understanding where technology is going and the fortune telling of these analyst.
The most interesting thing here isn't Apple but rather Intel. They are hurting from the general downturn in i86 sales. So they have two options to maintain profitability. One is to raise prices to support smaller volumes on expensive production lines. The other is to pack more functionality into a chip yet bettering prices to spur sales against low end ARM based systems. The second option is very tough but I think Intel has no choice but to off very competitive SoC next year. A7 might not do the trick this year, but Apple won't be far away from an uprated and improved 64 bit ARM solution. The thought of loosing Apple even partly as a customer must scare Intel stiff. Thus I can see Intel and Apple collaborating closely on a chip designed to offer up a low cost iMac. By the way that low cost iMac might only be a $800 machine which would still make it expensive in many eyes.
You might have a point if the iMac shipped as a single board machine, but it doesn't. Rather it ships with a power supply and a hard drive a separate items, even the RAM is a separate component. Non of these are easy to get to in the small machine. The hard drive and power supply are known failure points in all computers so yeah sealing them up inside a machine like the iMac is asinine. Maybe, maybe not, but that transaxle can be replaced and frankly it isn't much worst to do than most other cars of a similar design.
That is a bit of a stretch. First trucks are often ran reliable for much longer than the common car. Second cars with poor durability don't stand up to public opinion, Chevys Saturn was a good example here. Saturn being a nice idea, but the details are in the implementation and in that regard the machine was junk.
In any event we are talking about Macs here. They common refrain I here is that Macs last longer. That statement is debatable in and of itself but it can be agreed that on average people keep and use Macs for a longer period of time than the average PC, they do that by repairing them as needed when and if needed. At some point that means a third party facility, which frankly charge a bit more for an iMac repair due to the issues surrounding working on iMacs.
I just not buy the idea that a non repairable iMac, or maybe I should say a high cost to repair iMac, doesn't have an impact. I see the impact as very negative in a number of ways. For one it encourages consumers to buy long term warranties which are of debatable value. The second consideration is that disposable electronics do impact the environment, either through contamination of one sort or the other or via excess production to replace viable units that have failed prematurely. The third problem is the lack of customization, in this case adding RAM or internal storage that can effectively extend the life of any machine.
To look at this another way, I've never voted for a democrat in my life. So I don't consider myself an ignorant liberal out of touch with reality, however that doesn't mean the environment isn't important to me. The iMac in my mind puts up to many roadblocks that prevent owners from being responsible users of electronics. I actually detest the disposable mentality that much of society has these days and really wonder about the people that buy things like iPhones every year. It is sad really, I've seen lawn mowers thrown out because someone was too lazy to change the spark plug. Is that really the type of world we want to promote?
You might have a point if the iMac shipped as a single board machine, but it doesn't. Rather it ships with a power supply and a hard drive a separate items, even the RAM is a separate component.
Power supply is a perfect example. If you've been in an iMac you know the power supply is an open-frame design. If it was user-accessible, they would have to add metal to prevent shocks like in ordinary PCs. The extra casing then requires a separate fan for proper ventilation. So you've now had to build millions of extra metal cases and fans. Keep in mind that fans have a large environmental impact because they require copper windings, precision bearings and also rare-earth magnets.
That is a bit of a stretch. First trucks are often ran reliable for much longer than the common car.
See, you have to qualify your statement. Trucks actually last a shorter time on the road, just look at the age of fleet vehicles versus personal cars. They drive many more miles over that same period. The economics then favor replacement of powertrain components because they wear out before the frame rusts, plastic hoses fail, seats fall apart, etc.
For one it encourages consumers to buy long term warranties which are of debatable value.
Extended warranties actually promote more durable products by shifting the costs on to the manufacturer. If the product doesn't break, they profit. If the customer is footing the repair bill, they profit when it breaks. This was the subject of much study in the field of airplane engines. It was found that manufacturer service agreements had more direct cash costs, but led to a overall savings because engines were better maintained and more reliable: there was no incentive for the airline to put off work, and the manufacturer didn't want to foot the bill for emergency repairs. Another example is printers where you lease by the page. For some reason when they foot the bill for replacing the toner and ink, the cartridges need a lot less replacing.
The cost-benefit tradeoff is something that requires analysis on a whole population basis. Being patriotic or feeling like you should repair something yourself may benefit you, but on average is detrimental to the overall use of resources.
Not in an Apple environment, it can’t.
Freaking… what in the world is the problem with Apple that they won’t do network attached iTunes Libraries?! I mean, yeah, they want to sell more Macs, but you’d NEED a Mac to format said iTunes Library and add content to it in the first place. Just let me plug a hard drive into my AirPort Extreme and push content to an Apple TV…
That would be nice.
In order to appeal to the school market, I'd say Apple needs a $799 iMac or a Mac mini plus display combination for the same or less.
But apple doesn't cater to the low end, and that tends to be what schools buy. So unless it is a machine with last year's or older specs, it will have to be crippled in some way (display, memory, HDD, etc.) for Apple to hold their margins.
Years ago the imac started around $1000 with a 17" display or something around there. Education pricing was typically $100 off. It could happen, but I don't know if it's likely. Any kind of integrated graphics would work for an entry model. It doesn't have to use iris pro.
Going for a "low cost" iMac will be just a Mac Mini with an attached display, and that will be another failure.
The way to go is to release the top-of-the-line iMac, with the fastest CPU and the fastest GPU but without a display. That's what computer users wish today.
I get the feeling that you’ve asked this before and ignored the multiple times you’ve been told the iMac functions as a standalone display for exactly this purpose…
Maybe I’m wrong, but someone keeps asking it, so I apologize if it wasn’t you.
The way to go is not an xMac, or Apple would have done it.
It's also nonsense to lower the performance specs of the iMac. Computer users need performance. The ones who don't need performance have already moved to tablets.
I see the market message quite clear: if I want a computer, I want a powerful one (otherwise I'd get an iPad). But reasonably priced, and without stuff I already have. And the display is one thing most folks have already.
EDIT: get real, Apple uses the iMac display for scaling the product line. In other words: "you want a 4GB discrete GPU? Well, great, just also get a big display from us". They scale the product line by increasing the price adding stuff you don't need. This mechanism was fine when there were no tablets. But nowadays people who don't need a powerful Mac, get an iPad. Powerful configurations cannot come with unneeded stuff any longer. This way of scaling the product line isn't valid anymore.
1. You alone say -- with absolute confidence and certainty -- that the 5c has "failed". Do you know Apple's internal strategy? Its sales numbers for the new handset? Whether or not the device is meeting Apple's expectations? No you do not. Maintaining good stock on them doesn't equate to failure. Assumption is not the same as fact. Get that?
2. It's the 'second-tier' model. No different price or position than last year's second-tier model. Instead of continuing the iPhone 5 unchanged, they differentiated it from the top-tier model (and lowered costs) by changing the casing. Introduced something new and fun to the model line. You haven't touched one, obviously. They are neither "budget" nor "cheap" construction.
3. Yours isn't an argument, it's "contrariness". If you can't see it, that's a different matter.
The answer to 1) would be seen in cuts in production, and high inventory. We will actually know on Oct 28th when Apple will release their results for september, the phrase to listen for is "we ended the quarter with X weeks of forward looking inventory".
This is neither a problem nor a concern for anyone. Really, it isn’t. And they don’t have a greater one if they’re just now buying an iMac. They have the greater one after having purchased the iMac.
For offering two display sizes, you mean.
Then don’t buy that stuff. Should be pretty simple, right? Do you really want a terrible CPU and moderately good GPU? No, you want a good CPU and moderately good GPU.
Well, obviously not. Since they just. keep. selling. more.
Nope. The display in the iMac is used to scale all the desktop product line: If the iMac had low performance specs, its price should be low, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify a higher price by adding a display. OTOH, if the iMac had no display, it would be nonsense to ask $2500 for an i7 with a good GPU and SSD. It's the display what lets Apple ask $2500 for that configuration.
So, Apple scales the desktop product line by making the midrange machine an AIO. If you want a midrange, you pay more, with the justification that you also get a display which you didn't need.
But this way of scaling the product line is no longer valid.
It's not a rare personal view. A lot more people share my views.