If Windows wasn't user friendly, it wouldn't be on 90% of computers.
So how do you explain DOS running on over 90% of computers back in the day then? It had a far larger market share than Mac OS, Amiga, Atari ST, etc.
There were plenty of far more user friendly alternatives.
edit:
And yes, I said 4k IPS display because last i checked you can't actually buy a 5k display for a PC. But looks like someone found one above. At a significant percentage of the iMac cost. So that's kinda screwed your BOM, yes? Also, not clear if that 5k monitor is only 30hz - AFAIK the standard for >4k @60Hz (like the iMac 5k does) doesn't exist on the market yet... but i could have outdated knowledge on that.
[doublepost=1462685292][/doublepost]
See that's the thing though. Apple puts all those awesome and expensive features on the iMac with an underwhelming 5200 rpm spinner. Just why? It doesn't make sense.
Only if you choose the spinner. No, it doesn't make sense, but some people obviously order it because of cost or maybe they just don't trust SSDs, or need the space but can't afford terabytes of SSD?
I suspect the spinner disk option will go away within a generation as SSD is now cheap enough.
I brough up the Pro vs. Home windows discussion because someone asked based on a previous post I made.
OS X is OS X - there's no pro version other than the server app. Windows home has quite a lot of features crippled or removed from it that you get for free in OS X. Sure, not many people use bit locker, but you get file vault on OS X for free... just for one example.
AS to the specs Apple pick - no, they never put the highest spec available in stuff. They generally pick the sweet spot in terms of bang for buck for the middle model, and go up/down slightly for the cheaper/better models.
You may not like the choices but for the majority it makes reasonable sense and enables them to split their model lineup into clear segments. If the iMac 5k doesn't do what you want, you become a Mac Pro customer. No you may not like it, but then you have the opportunity to buy something else.
My point with the price comparison suggestion was to illustrate how close it is, even with a PC built from parts that you have to assemble, that doesn't include the same quality peripherals, doesn't even include an OS, and has no single source of support. People struggle to build a comparable machine based on parts cost alone, when they actually include everything supplied... the remaining things (OS X, single source of support, the nice all in one unit with 5k display), etc. are all gravy.
if the spec doesn't exactly match what you want, you have 2 choices: buy/build something else, or suck it up and accept the price premium as the cost of using OS X (and the features it includes), getting Apple's best in the industry support.
Again, i stand by the fact that for what you actually get, Apple machines are good value. If you do not value decent support, good quality peripherals and pleasant aesthetic design, then fine. Don't buy them. But to assume that this stuff costs nothing and can be excluded from a PC build to "prove" that Apple is overpriced is just being silly.
May as well ague that people are stupid for buying red cars because you don't like red.
[doublepost=1462685822][/doublepost]
I'm sick of this crap with everyone's responses. When you buy a "Desktop" CPU irregardless of the design. You are supposed to get "Desktop" parts inside the machine whether it's a tower or an all in one.
I think we should all ban together and file a "Class action lawsuit", This is fraudulent and the goddamn iMac costs warrant real desktop internals for the price. If I'm going to drop $3k on a new CPU, Then it better have $3k worth of components inside and not $900 worth of laptop crap internally. That is what the iMac has at this time. Un-acceptable for what were paying for.
Good luck with that. The cost of an iMac is (as described above) not the sum cost of the internal components only. That's not what you're buying.
Oh yeah, not sure on iMac SSD speed, but i've seen over 1400MB/sec sustained out of my MBP. to get that with SATA SSDs (to do it cheaply without using a PCIe card on a PC) you'd need a 3x RAID0 stripe. And thus have 3x the potential failure rate, assuming equal quality SSDs to the Mac.
[doublepost=1462686413][/doublepost]
This irks me to no end! We are already paying a premium...at least, lets not make them disposable. The whole idea was that you pay a premium and the fruity things last you a long time.
Not all people buy Macs on the basis of them lasting a long time. I still assume mine will need replacement after 3-4 years once the warranty runs out and they will potentially break outside of warrant, just like any other PC. Because that's what the components inside are. There's no magical apple secret sauce to defend against hardware failure.
The reason I pay a premium is for OS X, trackpads that don't suck, an OS that doesn't suck (and you have no idea, Windows in the enterprise is my day job - i use windows because i have to, i use OS X and pay the premium because i WANT to).
After 3-4 years time has moved on enough anyway that if you're the type to be whining about spec, you'd be upgrading or replacing your PC anyway. Most likely replacing almost all of it, as CPU sockets change, RAM sockets change, PCIe standards change, USB standards change, display port standards change, etc. Sure you might do it piecemeal instead of all at once, but that's just a personal budgeting problem - if you put the money away over 3 years to replace the hardware, be it a Mac or a PC, that should not be a problem to do all in one hit.
