Are New iMacs A Step Backwards?
Is it just me, or is the new Apple iMac actually a step backwards in terms of design, compared to the previous white iMac? The keyboard, especially, doesn’t look that usable to me; and, to my eyes, the black surround of the LCD panel makes the whole system look dated. Is this product good enough to command a price premium over competing products from companies such as Dell? I’m not sure…
Asam Bashir wrote:
I don’t see how it is a step backwards, and regarding the keyboard, you have to use it to make an opinion. I hate the old iMac keyboard personally as I found it less comfortable then my Powerbook keyboard.
How much does a Dell with 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo with the same specs cost then these days? Which models are you comparing?
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 5:40 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Re: Dell comparison…
Well, we just this last day ordered a Dell Dimension 9200 with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad-Core Q6600 CPU, 4GB RAM, 24 inch flat panel, 320GB hard drive, top wireless keyboard/mouse option.
Given that this is a Quad-Core box and has lots of room for expansion, you could compare to a Quad-Core Mac Pro. The nearest equivalent Mac Pro configuration is 2.8 times the price of the Dell.
If you compare to a dual-core box - the new 2.4GHz 24 inch Core 2 Duo iMac with 4GB RAM, then the Mac is 1.7 times the price of the Dell.
So depending on which comparator box you choose, the Apple price premium over Dell is anywhere between 70% and 180%.
Re: step backwards in design
I agree you have to use the keyboard to know for sure. I was just saying it *looks* like it might not be that usable. Engadget didn’t like the keyboard usability much, I note:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/apple-4g-imac-first-unboxing-impressions/
So, *if* the keyboard has usability issues, then I’d say it’s a step backwards.
Also, “Glossy” screens are not liked by sometypes of people e.g. software developers tend not to like glossy finishes to screens. So, the glossy screen is either a step forwards, or a step backwards, depending on yourpoint of view.
Clearly, people’s mileage may vary with these kind of things. It will be interesting to see how well the new iMac sells.
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 9:56 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
There are gaps in Apple’s product lines but they’re obviously not as profitable as the iMac which will no doubt be a huge seller. If you add up everything you’re getting including the little things like Bluetooth, Gigabit ethernet, top of the range graphics cards, digital sound out ect then I think you won’t find similar in a Dell.
Obviously the same situation with Mac Pro, nothing touches apart from extreme games machines like Alienware, and look at their prices.
There is a case for a more beefed up Mac Mini here though, for those that want their own third party peripherals.
The key to pricing a Mac though is how long you keep it. Sure you’re paying more, but you’re not changing your machine as often. I have an 7 year old PowerBook Pismo that’s still running Mac OS X 10.4.10.
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 10:46 pm ¶
simon wrote:
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any computer that doesn’t come with Gigabit ethernet these days. But sure, specifications will differ in fine detail… not always in the Mac’s favour though e.g. the quality of the Dell 24 inch panel is superior by significant margin to the quality of Apple 24 inch panel; and you can’t get a quad-core iMac etc. Also, obviously, with a PC, you have the option to add/remove whatever features you want e.g. bluetooth, digital sound out add-on boards, graphics cards etc.
I don’t think Apple is really in the business of competing on price with its Mac product line (even though they say they are price competitive). If you want a Mac, there’s only one option - buy from Apple; and Apple has figured out what it has to do to get away with charging what I calculate to be a price premium compared to its PC competition (I know Steve Jobs says there is no price premium, but I don’t understand how he works that out).
One thing Apple Mac customers are paying for is beautiful computers with innovative designs - ‘cos that’s one thing you *can’t* get from companies like Dell (even though they are starting to try harder with design now). So, when Apple introduces a new Mac, it needs to be beautiful and have innovative design. I’m not sure the new iMac qualifies.
However, I’m pretty sure Apple will have rather more interesting Mac products in the pipeline slated for release after they get Leopard out of the door.
Posted 10 Aug 2007 at 7:45 am ¶
Lally wrote:
The new keyboard’s a welcome improvement over the old one.
The black border’s really the only thing that bugs me, but I’ll give them benefit of the doubt on taking fashion risks. It took me a while to like the PowerMac G4’s Mirrored Drive Doors, but they were a welcome change.
I think a plain aluminum iMac would’ve probably looked boring, so they added the border on.
Posted 27 Aug 2007 at 8:23 pm ¶
Brent D wrote:
This is an old post but I am gambling that you might be interested to hear from someone nearly a year later on the “new” iMac.
I was out of the loop on processor development lately, probably because my current Toshiba laptop running XP was doing fine for all my program development and geophysics data processing needs. It’s a system that’s a few years old now, typical of most people in a small overhead company that tries to squeeze everything out of an investment that you can before you are forced to upgrade. I actually had to run the System tool to see what I’m running. Pentium Centrino at 1.74 GHz, 1.5 gigs of memory, 17″ display, wireless g network card, 5-way memory card slot in front. I’ve found this level of computer quite capable of running everything except for high end video or 3-D animation games, which admittedly I don’t use. But my requirements are non-the-less severe, being in geophysics. There is a perception these days with many critics that the latest and greatest has to be a major leap above the previous generation, when all we really need is for things to work properly as promised when they were first released. Upgrades have usually meant feature bloat, rather than true performance or useability gains. Heck, I’d even settle for fixing bugs and sticking with a design that works. How is it that I can’t buy this model of laptop now that it’s 3 years old. I like everything about it and when it wears out, I’ll be hard pressed to find one that works as well - talk about going backwards.
No, when I have to replace this Toshiba running XP with another laptop, I’ll seriously consider a new MacBook, in whatever configuration that is available at the time, knowing full well that new designs will be on the drawing board ready to replace it as soon as I hand over my credit card. It’s inevitable.
Since trying VMware’s Fusion product to run XP within an OS X window, I will probably not buy a PC again. As far as value for money goes, a lot of critics also forget about total cost of ownership when comparing the cost of a Mac with the cost of a PC. A Dell may be a cheap way to get a full size feature-rich computer but production problems and return rates have been getting steadily higher. Off-shore help desks do not always attract the best nor the fastest customer support experiences. And monthly or annual software renewals for PC-specific software quickly add to the cost when compared to the Mac. I speak here mainly about internet security, anti-virus, and anti-malware software. In a network environment with servers, the cost comparisons are even more striking, mostly in terms of system maintenance, and connection support.
As a person returning to Unix after a long spell as a Windows developer, I find the Mac is a refreshing change. I can concentrate on the business at hand, not the system admin, maintenance, and work arounds just to do the basics.
Posted 08 May 2008 at 9:38 pm ¶