titantiger

fastasleep said:

titantiger said:

fastasleep said:

titantiger said:

fastasleep said:

titantiger said:

saarek said:

I had planned on buying one of these iMacs, but I have to say I'm massively underwhelmed. £1649 for the model with 512GB SSD and a paltry 8GB of Ram and last years entry level chip.

Real nasty taste in the mouth with the £200 jump from the base model which they deliberately neutered to try and force people into buying the middle model.

I'm with you.  That $1700 model should have 16GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD in it.  And the entry level one is a joke.  That's the kind of stripped down SKU you'd expect them to sell as an "education version."

Have you ever looked at the lowest end 21.5” iMac before? That’s precisely what it is, along with stores and grandmas and other lightweight users who only need the bare basics and literally do not care about the missing features. It exists to reach the $1299 price point and serve those use cases. If it makes you mad, then you’re not the target audience for that model. 

I simply don’t understand the complaints that the cheapest model isn’t the best. It never has been.

That's not my complaint.  

The current 21.5" Intel iMac has had 8GB of RAM, 256GB SSD, Gigabit Ethernet and comes with 4 USB-A ports and two Thunderbolt ports, plus an SD card reader for $1099.  The new entry level is $200 more, has only two USB/Thunderbolt ports, no ethernet, no SD slot and still 8GB of RAM and 256 SSD.  That's my complaint - not that the entry level isn't the top of the line model, but that the entry level went up in price but down several pretty important areas.  And there isn't even a $1099 model option at all.

So buy that one instead, problem solved. Lol

It’s a completely different machine. There are costs that come with developing these things which will be recouped over time. New components that will get cheaper with higher yields over time. Inflation is a thing, have you compensated for that in your price comparisons of yesteryear’s models? This is not a new phenomenon and your comparison is meaningless. 

It's not "yesteryear."  I'm not comparing a 2015 iMac to today's model.  It's literally last year's iMac and Mac Mini that I've offered for comparison, which are totally in line with what should be expected here.  The internals of this iMac are not so drastically different from the other M1 models that it justifies a $200 price increase while removing basic functionality.

I figured if I traded from my current 27" model to the new M1 there'd be some tradeoffs - better processor but non-upgradeable RAM (and less of it), a slightly smaller screen, etc.  But what I didn't expect was to have to pay $200 extra over the already $200 more base model, just to have 2 fewer ports instead of 4 fewer, and to keep Gigabit Ethernet.  That doesn't even get into the small SSD size.  I don't see how these issues are unreasonable to point out.

You clearly don’t understand how this not an apples to apples specs comparison. It *is* drastically different in almost every measurable way!

Lastly you’re downsizing from a more expensive 27” model instead of waiting for the replacement for that model to arrive, and you’re complaining about $200? Good grief. 

Let me see if I can explain this to you simply:  It's not drastically different in ways that are meaningful to the end user.  It's the same M1 and same integrated 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD they can get in the Mac Mini.  It's roughly the same footprint as the 21.5" iMac with a slightly larger screen.  It's nice but not life changing nor a big boost in productivity or convenience in their day to day use of a Mac.  The average iMac buyer couldn't give a shit about the new cooling system

fastasleep said:

titantiger said:

mike1 said:

titantiger said:

Put another way, the base Mac Mini is $699.  Pair it with a nice $300 LG 4k display (24") and an Apple keyboard and Mouse and you're only at about $1150.  Same M1 chip, same 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD.  But more ports, Gigabit Ethernet, and even the ability to swap out the screen as a bonus if you wanted to later.  Add a webcam for $100 and you're still $50 under this crippled iMac's price point.

You clearly aren't the customer for this, so please spend your money elsewhere.

But I am the customer for it.  I've owned three iMacs since 2002.  I'm not asking for something unreasonable, or even something that is in line with what Apple has offered in the past.  The entry level consumer iMac at $1299 has never involved these kinds of petty compromises.  It makes no sense in light of the specs for the Mac Mini for instance.

There's no need to get pissy about valid criticism.  These are artificial feature removals that are a step backward from what the entry level, non-education iMac has offered in the past.

Did you consider the fact that it’s an entirely new industrial design and larger screen and doesn’t use a 4200rpm hard drive or any number of other features that would make it more difficult to reach the same price point of the previous low end model with all the features of the higher specced models? It’s not uncommon for newer improved models to come out at higher prices to recoup development and component expenses and later drop as those things improve. It’s not a new thing. 

I did consider it.  The 2020 iMac 21.5 had 8GB of RAM, 256 SSD (not a spinning hard drive) and only a slightly smaller screen for $1099.  The new design is nice but not $200 nicer when you remove that many ports and can't even be bothered to include an ethernet jack on a desktop computer.  

fastasleep said:

titantiger said:

saarek said:

I had planned on buying one of these iMacs, but I have to say I'm massively underwhelmed. £1649 for the model with 512GB SSD and a paltry 8GB of Ram and last years entry level chip.

Real nasty taste in the mouth with the £200 jump from the base model which they deliberately neutered to try and force people into buying the middle model.

I'm with you.  That $1700 model should have 16GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD in it.  And the entry level one is a joke.  That's the kind of stripped down SKU you'd expect them to sell as an "education version."

Have you ever looked at the lowest end 21.5” iMac before? That’s precisely what it is, along with stores and grandmas and other lightweight users who only need the bare basics and literally do not care about the missing features. It exists to reach the $1299 price point and serve those use cases. If it makes you mad, then you’re not the target audience for that model. 

I simply don’t understand the complaints that the cheapest model isn’t the best. It never has been.

That's not my complaint.  

The current 21.5" Intel iMac has had 8GB of RAM, 256GB SSD, Gigabit Ethernet and comes with 4 USB-A ports and two Thunderbolt ports, plus an SD card reader for $1099.  The new entry level is $200 more, has only two USB/Thunderbolt ports, no ethernet, no SD slot and still 8GB of RAM and 256 SSD.  That's my complaint - not that the entry level isn't the top of the line model, but that the entry level went up in price but down several pretty important areas.  And there isn't even a $1099 model option at all.

saarek said:

I had planned on buying one of these iMacs, but I have to say I'm massively underwhelmed. £1649 for the model with 512GB SSD and a paltry 8GB of Ram and last years entry level chip.

Real nasty taste in the mouth with the £200 jump from the base model which they deliberately neutered to try and force people into buying the middle model.

I'm with you.  That $1700 model should have 16GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD in it.  And the entry level one is a joke.  That's the kind of stripped down SKU you'd expect them to sell as an "education version."

That entry level one is what I'd expect for education and to be priced at $1099 or maybe $999.  The $1299 one should not only have the 2 USB 3 ports and gigabit Ethernet, but 512GB of storage.  The $1499 one should have 16GB of RAM and 512GB and the $1699 one should have 16GB of RAM and 1TB of storage.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.