Completely agree with your assessment of the current iMac design
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
256GB ssd is bull
- Thread starter 4743913
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I presently have a pre retina 27 iMac over a decade old and it surpasses the new generation by far in terms of RAM and storage capacity. 32 GB RAM and I upgraded it to 1 TB SSD all for less than the price to upgrade the present generation iMac to its max capacity. I even bought the old computer for only $200 and I've got a perfectly good 'consumer grade' machine with better base stats than one 13 years more modern!
Yes it's not as snappy because it uses slower RAM and SATA for the storage, but new iMacs are just a huge downgrade from where were near the end of the intel line.
Yes it's not as snappy because it uses slower RAM and SATA for the storage, but new iMacs are just a huge downgrade from where were near the end of the intel line.
Last edited:
Only thing about waiting is that tech isn't stagnant. Apple is going to keep the base specs artificially low for as long as possible. By the time they do increase both the RAM and storage to 16 and 512 GB respectively, the competition will probably already be starting at 24 GB and 1 TB.
When the iMac was being updated to M3 it came as a shock and surprise that they kept the exact same base specs as before. Even when the M1 premiered 8 GB and 256 GB were barely acceptable for a $1300 USD computer in 2019!
When the iMac was being updated to M3 it came as a shock and surprise that they kept the exact same base specs as before. Even when the M1 premiered 8 GB and 256 GB were barely acceptable for a $1300 USD computer in 2019!
It's obviously intentional. Apple has never made any iMacs with Pro or Max chips, only base M-series with a ceiling of 24GB memory.
Don't know what you intend "artificial" to mean.
Every maker targets products for certain customers.
The current iMac is not targeted towards power users. It is more closely aligned in the spirit of the original iMac.
Same with the Mac Mini, or the MBA. The base Mini is aimed for someone who wants a simple computer to plug into some need. The MBA is aimed for someone who needs a basic laptop.
Apple offers multiple products for people who need more computing resources than base offerings of the iMac or MBA or Mac Mini offer. If you need more, buy more.
Why didn't I think of that?! Just... throw in enough money to buy what you need!
Great. So if you have a 27 inch iMac and want to upgrade the solution is to either accept significant form and performance compromises, or pay Apple's outrageous prices. $1700 USD for just the 27 display already costs more than the present generation iMac... and you haven't even bought the computer yet! Now to match the RAM specs of the last generation intel iMac you'd need to buy an Apple studio. Upgraded to 128 GB that demands $4800 USD. Now you've got your replacement pro level 'iMac' coming in at $6500 USD.
Now let's wind the clocks back to 2019 where I could buy a 27 inch iMac for around $2000 USD and upgrade the RAM and storage myself for around $400 extra, bringing that to $2400. Inflation adjusted that's about $2800 in today's dollars.
So your answer is to simply not consider money an obstacle and just buy whatever Apple product you want for whatever Apple charges. Under those conditions I'll concede, now please tell me where I can find an extra $3700 USD where I don't have to sacrifice hundreds of hours more of time in order to make up for the deficit?
Edit: Now I'll admit the upgrade from 20 to 24 inch base model is impressive, but Apple has effectively neutered the higher-end iMac line in order to ensure pro users are forced to buy vastly more expensive options. Even the mini used to offer RAM and storage upgrades which have long since been removed for the specific purpose of price gouging on upgrades. These units aren't lacking for space and weight isn't an obstacle! A base mini has lots of empty space which easily could be used for modular SSD's. However when Apple charges $800 to upgrade from 256 GB to 2 TB of storage which can't be upgraded, why would they do something sensible like put in upgradable SSD modules? 2 TB SSD modules come in around $100 USD and Apple knows they can't gouge customers if we can simply install SSD's ourselves.
Last edited:
What about people who think 512 is not enough? Should the default be 1 TB since those people exist too?
I truly agree with everything you're saying, it's just hard to reconcile the fact that Apple's BTO prices for storage and memory are extreme, and so far exceed what the market says those parts are worth.
I suppose that you answered your previous question. The problem isn't what the base configuration is but that Apple has made it impossible to upgrade to your desired configuration unless you pay their outrageous upgrade costs. If upgrading to 16 GB RAM costs only $50 USD I would imagine many customers would gladly pay for that extra security. If SSD only cost $50 to upgrade to 512 instead of $200 I imagine many more would simply buy it because it's a much more reasonable price.
Modular SSD units come in 2 TB configurations for less than $200 and each GB costs less than $.10 whereas Apple charges $.78 for GB when upgrading to 512 from the base configuration. It's absolutely outrageous.
This is precisely it. No one really has any problem with Apple's base model configurations. They are totally sufficient for huge percentage of users. It's entirely the fact that all BTO options are outrageously priced.
