GG1

CheeseFreeze said:

Apple really needs to produce a monitor below their Pro model. More in the $1500 to $2000 range.

dewme said:

Whew, how could Apple, or at least Phil Schiller, have lusted in his heart about asking for a 40% cut on subscriptions? Naughty boy. What’s next, Tim Cook sitting on the back porch in a wife beater t-shirt and swigging Billy Beer? 

Alger said:

Been using one of these at work for the past 2.5 years.  The after-images/latent images/ghost images (whatever you're supposed to call them) are growing more pronounced every week, to the point where you literally cannot do Photoshop work on an image (for example) until it has been on screen, stationary, for a couple minutes.

Eric_in_CT said:

Backstory:
I also have an iMac from 2009.  Just home use.  Int, E-mail, and Photos (66,000 and counting!). 
I've put SSDs in two old iMacs (20" iMacs from 2008), and an A1283 Mac Mini.  All boot in 22 seconds now, and run great, but are stuck at El Cap. 
I've been too scared to risk our primary home machine on El Cap for fear of breaking it, then we'll need a new/used 27" !.   
We just soldier on.  Really need to open it up through and blow the dust out.  I suspect it's really bad in there.

Side comment:
In the US, the RAM pickup truck is "all-new", but RAM continues to make and sell the previous generation alongside the new generation.  Plenty of people in the market for a really good truck that does it's job well, without all the latest electronics.  So one saves good cash for a very good truck.

Comment:
If Apple sold what today is a $2500 iMac for $1500 with Intel's latest/final silicon, it would be a no-brainer to get the last Intel for a great price.
But isn't part of the problem that Intel is too $$$?  So do we expect ASi to be better AND cheaper?  Or at least way-better, and similar $$$?
So my only personal reservation is that the last Intel won't come with a big discount, and will remain full price.
Sine a lot of us keep our iMacs for YEARs, it will appear old in a hurry after way-better comes out.

E.

mpantone said:

canukstorm said:

StrangeDays said:

canukstorm said:

viclauyyc said:

canukstorm said:

JinTech said:

And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 

Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.

Not true. Apple ditched Motorola for the very similar result. 

Intel chip today is not much difference than 2 years ago. Just a little faster.

At the same time, look how much improvement in Apple A series and AMD cpu?

Nobody is denying that and that's besides the point.  Apple's goal is control all the key technologies of their ecosystem and they were going to switch to their own custom processors regardless of how well, or poorly, Intel was going to do.

Largely because of crap like this...Intel has been a problem for Apple for many years, and that’s certainly a major part of why they looked into eliminating them. Had Intel been able to keep them happy of course they’d have stayed.

Disagree. The day the 64-bit A7 SoC launched is the day Apple decided they were going to do their own silicon for Macs. It was a matter of when, not if.  People working in the silicon industry have known this for years.  Apple was moving away from Intel no matter what.  You and the rest can believe what you want.

My guess is that Apple has been running ARM macOS since their first custom silicon, the A4 (circa 2010). Going 64-bit was a major milestone that confirmed their decision but Apple had already charted this direction years earlier.

When the 64-bit iPhone SoC debuted, Apple's competitors were shocked into silence. The semiconductor industry knew the writing was on the wall. 

Apple's lab prototypes have probably outperformed Intel's production hardware for a couple of years. Intel has missed all of their roadmap targets for years and Apple would be very aware of this. They would also be receiving and reviewing various engineering samples of the next generation Intel silicon and it would have been frightfully clear that Intel just couldn't deliver on their commitments.

Intel made this happen. But it certainly wasn't overnight. This is basically years of Intel ineptitude. Meanwhile AMD emerges as a credible competitor and Nvidia moves past Intel in market capitalization.