Editorial: Apple is making us wait for a new iMac for no good reason

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 62
    The announcement of the iMac Pro alongside the iMac 2017 update is likely what the hold up is. They might be considering a new thinner bezel design like the recent MacBooks, and they know that whatever the update is they have to keep the iMac Pro to just as new hardware to keep the clear distinction and same external design. At over double the price the iMac Pro is  certainly not taking away iMac sells but rather the opposite happens, especially if they are updated out of sync. There is also that new (presumably thunderbolt) display coming this year, no doubt they want to include the same display on the next iMac updates, whether it keeps the 27" 5k design or introduces a new 30+" 6k design.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 62
    They are doing the same thing they did with the latest iPhone release.  Get the premium models out there first so that a much broader audience upgrades before being offered more economical models.  I think we'll see Apple do this more and more.
  • Reply 23 of 62
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 891unconfirmed, member
    The more I come to this site the more articles I see that are b*tch, b*tch, b*tch about anything or articles filled with half-truths purposely skewed to favor another company and/or to make people think Apple users are missing out on something Android users enjoying. 

    Examples...

    Epic doesn’t intend to sell to anyone, but after Jim Cramer suggests Apple buy the company, an article is written using a selected part of the Epic CEO’s words to make it look like Apple was spurned by a buyout offer. 

    5G support of a modem that won’t be released until late 2019, has no infrastructure support from telephone carriers, resembles previous nightmarish communications upgrades is written to portray Apple as a laggard while others will provide experiences to be envious of. 

    New hardware rumored by a “reliable” analyst gets reported then shortly afterwards a hit piece on current hardware is written/published. 







    People were complaining in the forums about new iMacs all week. So this is a response that generates clicks.
    edited February 20 entropysStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 62
    FolioFolio Posts: 555member
    My late 2015 iMac 27" still charms me each day. Chief reason for next upgrade for me is to go all Solid State, rid slight anxiety over Fusion melt down.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 62
    Way out of my depth, but isn't the iMac a tweener? The MacBooks, all of them, are so popular because they're can be used as the home and the portable for most retail users. And even for enterprise customers, folks hop from meeting to meeting all day and need their computers all the time. So the iMac is for the slightly more affluent or more "pro-am" consumer who buys a MacBook and a desktop, but not a high-end desktop system.
    I'm s.tarting to agree with you. If I buy anything this year then it will be a Mini.
    My 2015 15in MBP is running fine now that it has had a new KB (my own fault and not a design problem).
    I have a 27in 4K screen that I plug into the MBP. I'll use that on the Mini.
    I've considered an iMac before but to be honest I think that with the option to add a discrete graphics card to the Mini, that might be the way to go in the future if I need the graphics performance.

    At the moment, my main issue is Storage. My Photo archive is 2.6TB and growing.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 62
    For no good reason? How do you determine  what is a good reason?
    SpamSandwichStrangeDaysPylons
  • Reply 27 of 62
    davdav Posts: 92member
    sacto joe said:
    I’m limping along with my 2000 iMac 27”
    you mean 2010?
    I'm still running a mid-2011 iMac 27" -- it's been a great machine, but now i'm looking to upgrade as well.
    camcstompywatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 62
    sacto joe said:
    I have champagne tastes on a beer budget. I’m limping along with my 2000 iMac 27”, but could really use a lot more power for the solid modeling work I do. I’m probably going to upgrade to a new 27” iMac in the next year or two, and I may go with the present version if a new version comes out and the price drops on the present version.

    In the meantime, I haven’t had a lick of trouble with my iMac, which is a testament to Apple taking their time and doing the job right. If it takes them longer, there’s a good reason for it. Time to stop whining and get on with life.
    Great response. I also have an original iMac, 27 inch 5K, and it works absolutely perfect. I’m sure Apple will release a new one on when they are ready - It’s not like they are working on other things, including the Mac Pro.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 62
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,706member
    The problem with using a 6K monitor in the iMac would be the price. In the iMac Pro, sure. The hero device. But not for the iMac. That is just overkill that does nothing but shrink its market. It would be glorious, but stupid.

    The GPU in my iMac has finally died after the fifth bake that I have been doing to fix the radeon’s solder (at least I was able to repair it myself).  It is way past time for a new machine. But rather than buy a geriatric iMac at new hardware prices, I am building a PC with my son.  He wanted a gamer. I have been buying macs since 1985, and this will be the first home machine not a Mac in all that time. Let’s just say it will be powerful, but it is a brute, without the elegance of an iMac. And it is a big chink in this Apple household.

    I reckon I could convince Mrs entropy that I need an iMac for myself, but not if its price goes up even further.

    edited February 20
  • Reply 30 of 62
    jridder said:
    Other than speed bumps, what do you expect to change? The design is pretty solid and thin, although they could go thinner I suppose but then that brings challenges with heat. 

    Getting the newest CPU and GPUs, of course - it's been a while since the last upgrade. I'd also want 802.1ax wireless network - sure, there are few routers yet that support it but in the lifespan of my next machine I will get it. 

    Other than these upgrades - to be on the front line of technology and stay premium, I'm expecting a move to USB 3.1 type C. Hopefully, they will also be able to incorporate FaceID or at least TouchID. Replacing Fusion Drive with an all SSD solution is a possibility.

    If I could dream, ATI would be replaced by Nvidia as ATI has fallen far behind - but that seems unlikely.

    Design - most of the bezel could go. No real point in making it thinner, but the bezel could die.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 62
    dav said:
    sacto joe said:
    I’m limping along with my 2000 iMac 27”
    you mean 2010?
    I'm still running a mid-2011 iMac 27" -- it's been a great machine, but now i'm looking to upgrade as well.
    Oops! You’re right. I blame these old eyeballs....
    davwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 62
    Dave Kap said:
    For no good reason? How do you determine  what is a good reason?
    This article is a hatchet-job on Apple for no good reason.

    Apple is waiting because iMacs don't use mobility CPUs and they're between cycle right now.  It makes no sense to produce a new iMac with identical specs and just a small generational speedbump in Intel CPUs.  The 2013, 15 and 17 all have desktop class CPUs...not mobility.  That's a prime reason Apple is waiting.

    They may be ironing out the technologies and economies of scale for the new screen.  Screens that rich and dense are extremely difficult to produce and to roll into an AiO pricepoint.

    The biggest reason Apple is waiting is because the 2017 iMacs are using AMD GPUs: 570 and 580s.  What would they upgrade to 2 years later? Apple doesn't expect users to be clueless and purchase brand new computers based on a 7xxx to 8xxx Intel speedbump.  They also expect a noticeable, significant performance increase in graphics horsepower.  What AMD GPU would they sneak into the iMac to make that happen?

    Surely they wouldn't just put another 580 in there would they?  You're going to pay 2000 dollars for a computer that gets nuked by a GTX 2060 or 1660 Ti? A 2000 dollar computer with an almost 3 year old midrange graphics card?  Only an abject fool does that.  They don't use NVidia.  So that eliminates the 1070, 1070 Ti, 1080, 2060, 1060Ti, 2070 and 2080.

    AMD only has FOUR graphics cards faster than the 580: The 590, which is only 8% faster with the newest drivers.  And It has 20% more TDP no less. Then you have the Vega 56 (iMac Pro), 64 (iMac Pro) and the VII, which is faster than any of the aforementioned and is an 800 dollar card.

    There simply isn't a GPU available for Apple to use in its TWO year upgrade on the iMac and using a THREE year old MIDRANGE GPU in a premium 2000 dollar computer is absolutely unacceptable.

    That leaves us...and Apple waiting for AMD and the Polaris 11 based 3080 which uses about the same wattage as a 580 but has 1070 Ti- 1080 performance.

    That is what we're waiting for.


    Dave KaptmaystompyapplesnorangeselijahgPylonswatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 62
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,250member
    Working on a new, modular, promised Mac Pro would be a great reason for putting the iMac on the back burner.

    The iMac has reached the plateau stage, so typical bump increases in speed and storage are about all we can expect. A GPU upgrade is always welcome, but they're incremental, and not usually significantly so.

    We finally got a decent Mac mini upgrade, but it was long overdue, so a two year cycle on iMacs doesn't bother me in the least, especially if Apple teases us with that modular Mac Pro at WWDC.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 62
    It is time for Apple to offer yearly product updates.   this is absurd at this point.   
    docno42jeffythequickelijahgMarkJ59
  • Reply 35 of 62
    Better wait a bit longer for Apple to get it right, October 2019 will do just fine


    The iMac serves at least 3 different markets:

    1- Members of the general public who want to spoil themselves with the affordable luxury of a better computer than what competitors offer for a lower price. For the more affluent consumers, features are key to their decision to buy a more expensive iMac and they want a visible difference from what competitors offer, e.g. a bigger display, a bigger hard disk drive, a wireless keyboard, a wireless mouse.

    Customization, a build to order iMac is an important selling point, making sure that consumers get a computer with all the features that they value: massive storage, instant access of SSDs, plenty of RAM, faster CPUs and/or GPUs.

    2- Professionals and corporations who can claim the cost of an iMac on their income tax returns. Some will want a low cost model that they can place on every desk while others won't mind paying for the features that they need: a bigger display and/or a bigger hard disk drive.

    3- University and Corporate research departments for whom computing power is important as well as overall quality which allows for uninterrupted use over long stretches of time. They need the latest and most powerful desktop CPUs and desktop GPUs and are willing to pay for them. Nothing low powered for them. A desktop computer is not a light and thin laptop.

    Again, customization, a build to order iMac is an important selling point, making sure that researchers get a computer with all the features that they value: massive storage and/or the instant access of SSDs, plenty of RAM, faster CPUs and/or GPUs.


    Apple came up with an exceptional industrial design for the iMac 2009-2012 which provided ample space behind the display to ensure proper heat dissipation and great acoustic properties. The iMac 2009-2012 form factor projected an overall image and a reality of quality and sturdiness.

    When it was first introduced in October 2009, the iMac 2009-2012 was the first computer from Apple to use a quad-core CPU and to include a standard 27 inch display, a wireless keyboard and a wireless mouse for members of the general public.

    The iMac 2009-2012 was a resounding success. Most companies won't abandon such a successful industrial design because they know that lightning doesn't strike twice, especially over a short period of time.

    In October 2019, it will be 10 years that the iMac 2009-2012 was first introduced. To celebrate the innovative and highly successful industrial design of the iMac 2009-2012, it's time for Apple to return back to basics and for function to dictate the form of an all-in-one desktop computer. It's time for Apple to introduce updated components into a brand new iMac 2019 with the iMac 2009-2012 form factor.

    Thin and light are key features for portable computing, MacBooks, iPads and iPhones, but thin and light are foolish for a desktop computer or an all-in-one desktop computer where the emphasis should be on powerful desktop components, large display, massive storage options, exceptional sound quality from loudspeakers, not headphones, and proper heat dissipation.


    Here's what I look for in the iMac 2019, beyond a return to the iMac 2009-2012 form factor:

    1 - Optional 8 to 14 TB Fusion drives with a 256 GB SSD.

    A 8 TB Seagate BarraCuda Pro SATA HDD, 7200 RPM, 6 Gb/s transfer rate, 256 MB cache, 3.5 inch internal hard drive for desktop computers has a retail price of $272.57 on Amazon, while the top of the line 14 TB model has a retail price of $576.29. The 10 TB model sells for $344.99 and the 12 TB model sells for $437.99.

    If these internal hard disk drives for desktop computers are available from Amazon, Seagate and Hitachi (HGT), I expect them to be available when buying a brand new iMac. It's both a question of meeting my needs and future proofing my purchase of a brand new iMac.

    There is no excuse for offering brand new iMacs with only 2 or 3 TB Fusion drives. Leave a low cost option with a 2 TB Fusion drive, but offer a standard 6 TB Fusion drive with a 256 GB SSD and optional increments of 8 TB to 14 TB Fusion drives with a 256 GB SSD. As Apple offers iPads and iPhones that come standard with a 256 GB SSD, it should be easy to standardize on 256 GB SSDs for Fusion drives in iMacs.

    2 - Exceptional sound quality comparable to the iMac 2009-2012, possibly due to the great acoustics of the iMac 2009-2012 form factor and the loudspeakers used. Needless to say, exceptional sound quality is a key feature for anyone who stores his digital music collection on an iMac and enjoys listening to music while performing other tasks on an iMac.

    3 - A next generation Ice Lake 10 nm desktop CPU and desktop GPU for the all-in-one desktop iMac, not the less powerful CPU and GPU alternatives typically used in portable computers.

    Intel demonstrates 10nm Ice Lake processor, promises PCs will ship with it later this year @

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18171718/intel-ice-lake-10nm-processor-dell-demo-ces-2019

    "Intel is building in Thunderbolt 3, Wi-Fi 6, and DL Boost (deep learning boost) into these Ice Lake chips for laptops and PCs to take advantage of. Intel is now promising that PC makers will have devices with Ice Lake processors on shelves by the end of 2019."

    4 - A RAM access door to add memory modules after the iMac is bought.

    5 - Possibly a digital FM radio tuner to make it possible to listen to music, talk shows and local news while working on an iMac. Radio stations broadcast over the internet, but there is something to be said about being untied from the internet which in some areas is not reliable and/or high speed.

    6 - Possibly a larger display, a 30, 32 or 35 inch display, just like Apple was the first computer maker to offer a standard 27 inch display in an all-in-one computer for the general public.

    7 - Possibly some connectors on the right side of the iMac's display for easier occasional access to connectors, let's say 2 USB connectors and 1 or 2 Thunderbolt connectors.

    8 - Possibly a better air flow with the possibility for each user to set the fans to run all the time at 10% of their maximum speed, thereby providing a quiet but constant air flow. At present, there is a third party utility "TG Pro" with similar functionality, but it would be great if it were included in every iMac.

    As Apple engineers are working on the features to include in the next iMac, I hope that my comment was helpful. An exceptional design for the right price should rekindle iMac sales.
    edited February 20 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 62
    If the delay is due to a significant redesign, then it’s justified. If there are only incremental hardware improvements or cosmetic refinements, then delays are indefensible.
    docno42watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 62
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,304member
    melgross said:

    i remember when Apple updated its machines four times a year. Yeah, that was back in the early/mid ‘90’s. It dropped to once a year. That was still fine. But Apple’s irregularity is hurting sales, and not in a small way.
    This has been the worst time to be a desktop Mac user in a long time.  The delay in the MacPro at this point is simply inexcusable.   If Apple doesn't want to make these low volume "edge case" machines then license it out to hardware manufacturers that will be more than willing to fill the gaps.  They can put terms around the licensing to prevent them from being undercut on the low end like during the PowerPC clone era.  

    We need hardware diversity on the Mac; if that's not important enough for Apple to be bothered to do then turn stewardship over to a companies or companies who will cater to the needs of their users.  

    OTOH hand I was using my mom's 5K iMac last week - that display is simply gorgeous.  
    elijahgMarkJ59
  • Reply 38 of 62
    I was torn between the new iMac and the iMac Pro in late 2017. I decided to go with the iMac even before the iMac Pro was released. And honestly, I'm glad I didn't go with the pro version for many reasons. I have the most souped-up 27" (18,3) model, which I suppose makes a difference. But even right now, the single core performance of my i7-7700k is faster than any other CPU in the Mac line save the highest-end Mac Mini that just came out (according to Passmark, and the difference is completely trivial in any case). The CPU in the top-of-the-line 18-core iMac Pro is twice as fast according to Passmark overall score (i.e., multi-core), but that doesn't necessarily reflect anything meaningful. I've only ever used one application that made full use of all of my cores, and while the speed was impressive, it really wasn't necessary for the application in question (not for my purposes, anyway). In a great many instances, single-core performance is still more important. And when it comes to power users, the multi-core benefits that you get while running many different applications become largely irrelevant, because those users are only going to be running the bare minimum when it comes to apps and services. Everything else gets shut down and the system is tuned for optimal performance. The two features that the iMac Pro had that were appealing to me were: 1) more RAM [128GB vs 64 GB]; and 2) 10Gb ethernet. The former is frankly not enough of a difference to make me care all that much (256 GB or 512 GB would have made a different impression), and the latter is largely irrelevant, since I can get 10 Gbit ethernet, should I desire it, by using a TB3 adapter. Moreover, you have to configure the RAM in the iMac Pro at purchase IIRC (my 64 GB RAM was the one thing I bought 3rd party, which saved me some), and the Pros start costing a pretty penny very quickly. I would personally rather spend the extra wad on another machine, which would ultimately give me much better performance for my purposes anyway. All that said, I don't see why Apple didn't do a CPU bump last year, at a minimum. But then, it's not exactly uncommon for them to ignore certain machines for years (i.e., the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini). Apple isn't perfect, and they've made a lot of missteps during the past decade that have aggravated many users, including myself. I'd thoroughly welcome a newcomer, but I don't think we'll see one anytime soon. The barriers to entry are too high, and the rewards are too low.  
    edited February 20
  • Reply 39 of 62
    BittySon said:
    The wait is not for no good reason.  The company is in a hot mess right now, leaderless and drifting out to sea.  Tim Cook has to go yesterday.  His lack of vision and holding people accountable for timelines has finally caught up to him.  The company just isn't as good as it was a few years ago, and as it should be.
    I realize that iPhones the bulk of the profits, but there will be no profits in the future if they don't get innovation AND execution right soon.
    Pure nonsense. The company is bigger and more successful under Cook by every metric, from profit to consumer satisfaction ratings. The entitled whining of techies on a rumors sites are infinitesimally marginal. Normal consumers don't care about the shit you guys care about, trust me. Cook is one of the great CEOs of the modern era, and only a complete fool would suggest he be fired. Get real.  
    tmayelijahgfastasleepPylonswatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 62
    Dave Kap said:
    For no good reason? How do you determine  what is a good reason?
    Exactly. Sure sounds like a clickbait headline to me.

    (previous post was deleted - how come people get to crit on DED's opinion pieces, but not anyone else's?)
    edited February 20 macxpressDave Kap
Sign In or Register to comment.