Reasons why M1 iMac may look like worse value compared to the previous upgrade cycles

[Darajavahus]

The $1099 1080p 21.5 iMac had MacBook Air processor with integrated graphics and nobody was recommending this one, it was so bad compared to just $200 more, 4K, desktop processors and always the same GPU that MacBook Pro 15 then 16 had, that may be the reason everybody expected new iMac get something better than M1, like guessing M1X something the same that MacBook Pro 16 gonna have, so M1 would be fine for $1099 one but that $1299 and even $1699 coming with the same chip that MacBook Air is surprising/disappointing to some, for years 21.5 could be configured with better performance than MacBook Pro 15 for less, it had the best value, price/perf now it just doesn't... So I hope this makes clear why some train of thinking could make them feel disappointed.

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

Exactly. With Intel Macs it has always been a choice between portability or a better price/performance ratio. This doesn‘t seem to be the case anymore with M1 Macs - the price goes up in correlation with the screen size, the performance doesn‘t. For MacBook users this is great news, for desktop users... not so much. I definitely am a little bit bummed that the 23,5“ iMac was introduced with the same specs as the portable devices, I expected it to have a little bit more power.

 

[Slartibart]

The $1099 1080p 21.5 iMac had MacBook Air processor with integrated graphics and nobody was recommending this one, it was so bad compared to just $200 more, 4K, desktop processors and always the same GPU that MacBook Pro 15 then 16 had, that may be the reason everybody expected new iMac get something better than M1, like guessing M1X something the same that MacBook Pro 16 gonna have, so M1 would be fine for $1099 one but that $1299 and even $1699 coming with MacBook Air chip is surprising/disappointing to some, for years 21.5 could be configured with better performance than MacBook Pro 15 for less, it had the best value, price/perf now it just doesn't... So I hope this makes clear why some train of thinking could make them feel disappointed.

Exactly. With Intel Macs it has always been a choice between portability or a better price/performance ratio. This doesn‘t seem to be the case anymore with M1 Macs - the price goes up in correlation with the screen size, the performance doesn‘t. For MacBook users this is great news, for desktop users... not so much. I definitely am a little bit bummed that the 23,5“ iMac was introduced with the same specs as the portable devices, I expected it to have a little bit more power.

Of course you can still look for your personal ”best value”, but Apple machines now challenge the idea that a computer’s price ought to principally reflect the CPU inside of it.

You simply do not have to bother with the power of a device or wether you have lasting battery life etc.. making the vast array of x86 products actually out there to appear neither helpful or necessary.

 

[Maconplasma]

so M1 would be fine for $1099 one but that $1299 and even $1699 coming with MacBook Air chip is surprising/disappointing to some, for years 21.5 could be configured with better performance than MacBook Pro 15 for less, it had the best value, price/perf now it just doesn't... So I hope this makes clear why some train of thinking could make them feel disappointed.

The M1 isn't a "MacBook Air" processor. It's more than rivaled the performance of the 16" MBP in power and graphics. You're greatly talking down the M1 which makes no sense. Furthermore I'm betting the Pro models such as the 16" will also contain the monikered "M1" processor and that Apple will just unlock functionality of it as they currently do by unlocking the graphics between the 7 Core GPU and the 8 Core GPU.

 

[Arctic Moose]

Wait, what? Are you complaining that you’re getting efficiency and performance, and that you can simply choose the form factor that suits you best?

 

[Darajavahus]

Wait, what? Are you complaining that you’re getting efficiency and performance, and that you can simply choose the form factor that suits you best?

I think I made it as clear as can be. You used to get 16" MBP level of power and graphics in imac 21.5 now you get iPad Pro level, Imagine if previously iPad Pros used Intel Atom and the 21.5 iMacs as well, I do not say that M1 is bad, a just say price/perf ratio in AS era is not like before. No complaining, just an observation how some see this.

The M1 isn't a "MacBook Air" processor. It's more than rivaled the performance of the 16" MBP in power and graphics. You're greatly talking down the M1 which makes no sense. Furthermore I'm betting the Pro models such as the 16" will also contain the monikered "M1" processor and that Apple will just unlock functionality of it as they currently do by unlocking the graphics between the 7 Core GPU and the 8 Core GPU.

I'm not taking down M1, a just saying price/perforation ratio of the 23.5 iMac to all AS Macs is not like the 21.5 iMac to all intel Macs, and to continue previous trend some assumed the new iMacs would get AS that the next 16" MBP gonna get.

 

[velocityg4]

I expect a big part of the cost increase is the screen. It's a custom resolution. Which costs a lot more to manufacture.

If they stuck with a nice IPS 24" 4K display. Then it could have cost considerably less. For a slightly lower PPI display. Plus you'd be able to find a second monitor to go with it.

 

[Arctic Moose]

I think I made it as clear as can be. You used to get 16" MBP level of power and graphics in imac 21.5 now you get iPad Pro level, Imagine if previously iPad Pros used Intel Atom and the 21.5 iMacs as well, I do not say that M1 is bad, a just say price/perf ratio in AS era is not like before. No complaining, just an observation how some see this.

Seems like a weird perspective to me, considering you are now getting desktop-level performance and 15 hours of battery out of a $999 MacBook Air with no cooling.

The new entry level all-in-one desktop also has this great performance, while running cool and silent.

Win-win. The only losers are those who have paid thousands for a 16" MacBook Pro, or even an iMac Pro, and now see the old computers collecting dust because they prefer to use their new sub-grand M1 Macs exclusively.

 

[4sallypat]

.......The only losers are those who have a 16" MacBook Pro, or even an iMac Pro, and now see the old computers collecting dust because they prefer to user their new sub-grand M1 Macs exclusively.

Agree.

I have the 16" MBP and have not touched it since the M1 Mini base as it runs circles around the stupid Intel i7 6 core super hot processor !
(my wife occasionally uses it to keep her lap warm).

Sold all my other Intel Macs (Mini 2012, Mini 2014, Mini 2018, MBP 2014, MBA 2018).

Can't wait for the low priced iMac next month - will be pre-ordering a base M1 in blue w/ optional $30 Ethernet.

EDU pricing is $1249 plus $30 ethernet + tax - will use the Apple Card to finance it for 12 months at 0% interest!

 

[chocolaterabbit]

I think I made it as clear as can be. You used to get 16" MBP level of power and graphics in imac 21.5 now you get iPad Pro level, Imagine if previously iPad Pros used Intel Atom and the 21.5 iMacs as well, I do not say that M1 is bad, a just say price/perf ratio in AS era is not like before. No complaining, just an observation how some see this.

You're thinking about it in the wrong way. iPad Pros are now just as fast as that 16" MBP, not the other way around. So instead of thinking about it the way Intel wants you to think, that is pay less and get a smaller/cheaper computer or pay more and get a faster/bigger computer, Apple's philosophy is everything is super fast and you can instead select your form factor/size.

 

[Zandros]

I agree with OP.

It is inevitable that the Pro computers will get faster chips (The M1 isn't outperforming the high-end Intel/AMD chips after all), and considering that the iMac has a larger power budget and more space than the MBA/iPad Pro it is disappointing that doesn't come with more processing power, and particularly GPU power. (All the iPad Pro models even come with the full 8 GPU cores, compared to the iMac that has to make do with less for the cheaper model!)

The 21.5" iMac used to be by far a better deal than the Mac Mini considering all the extra things you got for the price. Now, it's not as much.

In general, the M1 has been a great boon for those who needed more performance in a small package, but for those of us who just plain need more performance (but are still cost-conscious), we haven't really seen that yet. The 24" iMac was a chance for that to happen, but it didn't.