You must be missing something. My MBA is barely a wheezing underpowered machine and does general tasks better than my desktop. That's what this machine spec is aimed at.
Perhaps I am, does your MBA use a 5400 rpm spinner?
Last edited:
Has Tim Cook lost the plot?
- Thread starter Faustus
- Start date
Perhaps I am, does your MBA use a 5400 rpm spinner?
Well I guess you should go to their shareholder meetings then and voice your opinion of how they shouldn't try to make less expensive models because exclusivity of the brand is more important than sales and profit.
I get your point about the 5400 RPM disk, but a quicker CPU doesn't make a hard drive quicker. If you're going to whinge about that then complain that the iMac range doesn't have a Fusion Drive as standard. You know, since it's a premium computer.
Nope, its the 2013 model with the 256GB SSD. Absolutely flies!
You have my point then.
Nobody is debating whether the new iMac is slower than the other models in the range, they are debating your assessment that this is somehow the beginning of the decline for Apple, and that it's tarnished the brand somewhat. This is what people are disagreeing with you on, but you seem to want to drag it full-circle into some sort of spec argument.
You think an £899 iMac somehow goes against what Apple stand for, and a lot of people don't agree with you.
Armchair CEOing has got to be the most pointless pursuit it's possible to engage in. If you don't like it then vote with your feet and sell your Apple shares.
You think an £899 iMac somehow goes against what Apple stand for, and a lot of people don't agree with you.
Armchair CEOing has got to be the most pointless pursuit it's possible to engage in. If you don't like it then vote with your feet and sell your Apple shares.
I'm not really seeing much in there that wasn't discussed in this thread? The same technical points are in there, just without your brand obsession.
We've had underpowered base spec Macs for 30 years. 128k Macintosh, Original iMac, Core Solo Mac mini.
We've had underpowered base spec Macs for 30 years. 128k Macintosh, Original iMac, Core Solo Mac mini.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Can the 5400rpm model use a usb stick for cache
Apple shares are still cheap so long as they continue to sell more in Asia
Thin edge of the wedge yea. Think its a common tactic, especially if they can employ scales of economy in production then releasing a cheap slightly clipped version of the real deal can work well
Apple shares are still cheap so long as they continue to sell more in Asia
Thin edge of the wedge yea. Think its a common tactic, especially if they can employ scales of economy in production then releasing a cheap slightly clipped version of the real deal can work well
Last edited:
Quite an interesting post regarding SSD, HDD, Graphics and RAM which if you can follow the tech trail plus the already published bench marks you can readily understand how underpowered this particular iMac will be.
Where Caged gets the notion from that I implied the release of this model was the beginning of the end for Apple goodness only knows. Talk about a fertile mind. My view is that for price versus spec it's something of a lemon and I don't understand the logic behind it. Now if they had simply dropped the price of the current base model which isn't overly generous on spec then that I could understand.
But that's not what you said in your opening post, and that's not what you've argued about throughout the thread.
Your thread title asked the question of whether Tim Cook had lost the plot, and your posts have been banging on about the Apple brand being devalued. Nobody is arguing that the specs aren't brilliant, that's all in your head. Where people are disagreeing is that it's actually an issue - when it just isn't. People will buy this and be happy with it. The people who don't want it will buy a higher specced model. The people who go on about Apple not making an £800 tower that they can put their own video card in will continue to waste their lives building Hackintoshes and moaning on the internet.
This devalues the Apple brand no more than the numerous underpowered-but-cheap(ish) systems that Apple have built in the past - the single-CPU 1.8 GHz G5, the eMac, the Core Solo Mac Minis etc. None of those did damage to the Apple 'brand' in any way, because the brand is more than the price to performance ratio of their products. As has been pointed out numerous times, it doesn't matter how quick it is relative to the other systems Apple make - if it's quick enough to run Office applications and Safari then it is literally the perfect machine for a vast quantity of Apple customers. See the pricing for education mentioned earlier in the thread.
Your thread title asked the question of whether Tim Cook had lost the plot, and your posts have been banging on about the Apple brand being devalued. Nobody is arguing that the specs aren't brilliant, that's all in your head. Where people are disagreeing is that it's actually an issue - when it just isn't. People will buy this and be happy with it. The people who don't want it will buy a higher specced model. The people who go on about Apple not making an £800 tower that they can put their own video card in will continue to waste their lives building Hackintoshes and moaning on the internet.
This devalues the Apple brand no more than the numerous underpowered-but-cheap(ish) systems that Apple have built in the past - the single-CPU 1.8 GHz G5, the eMac, the Core Solo Mac Minis etc. None of those did damage to the Apple 'brand' in any way, because the brand is more than the price to performance ratio of their products. As has been pointed out numerous times, it doesn't matter how quick it is relative to the other systems Apple make - if it's quick enough to run Office applications and Safari then it is literally the perfect machine for a vast quantity of Apple customers. See the pricing for education mentioned earlier in the thread.
Last edited:
You quite rightly say that I did ask the question concerning TC and My remarks are correct about devaluing the brand. That's because Apple has worked hard to build a reputation for perceived build quality combined with good specs. To then offer a cheaper poorly spec'd version of that product is in my opinion a strange decision. It does also risk devaluing the brand if customers aren't happy with performance. It is after all supposed to be a Desktop. We will have to wait and see regarding that.
That is however, a long way from claiming I said this is the end for Apple - which BTW I didn't.
This is an absolutely pointless thing to argue about. Question the decision all you want, don't claim that somehow it's damaging the brand and that your opinion is fact.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't fit your definition of desktop, what matters is whether the people who buy it will be happy with it, and for a lot of people who don't have demanding requirements from a computer the answer will be yes. If they want to edit video all day long or deal with RAW photos then they will be advised to buy a different model. The possibility that someone could buy something that isn't suitable for their requirements because they just click "Add to cart" on the cheapest model isn't Apple's fault, and could happen with any other product they make.
What is there to source? A machine that capably runs Office and Safari will be perfect for people who's job involves using Office and Safari. I'm not sure where that statement needs backing up.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't fit your definition of desktop, what matters is whether the people who buy it will be happy with it, and for a lot of people who don't have demanding requirements from a computer the answer will be yes. If they want to edit video all day long or deal with RAW photos then they will be advised to buy a different model. The possibility that someone could buy something that isn't suitable for their requirements because they just click "Add to cart" on the cheapest model isn't Apple's fault, and could happen with any other product they make.
What is there to source? A machine that capably runs Office and Safari will be perfect for people who's job involves using Office and Safari. I'm not sure where that statement needs backing up.
I suppose the iPhone 5C could do with a mention. We all look at it as the cheap model, but it hasn't harmed the brand and instead allowed more people to buy an Apple product, where they could have previously said they couldn't afford to.
While we're on this subject
I don't agree with that at all. In my opinion Apple have a reputation for good quality products in terms of build, good after-sales care, and a great user experience. They have never played the specs war, and every new iPhone release sees a large amount of shouting from the Android camp about the speed of the processor or the amount of RAM it has, when the point is that it doesn't matter. If this new iMac provides a good user experience for the people buying it then it's done the job, because the build quality and the after-sales care haven't changed. Bottom of the range products that are lacking in certain areas on a spec sheet is nothing new for Apple - look at the base RAM load in the white Intel iMacs for example.
I don't agree with that at all. In my opinion Apple have a reputation for good quality products in terms of build, good after-sales care, and a great user experience. They have never played the specs war, and every new iPhone release sees a large amount of shouting from the Android camp about the speed of the processor or the amount of RAM it has, when the point is that it doesn't matter. If this new iMac provides a good user experience for the people buying it then it's done the job, because the build quality and the after-sales care haven't changed. Bottom of the range products that are lacking in certain areas on a spec sheet is nothing new for Apple - look at the base RAM load in the white Intel iMacs for example.
Heh! It's really that bad now?
