The 24" M1 iMac is now the most expensive Apple Silicon Mac

[leman]

Sure. But we were speculating about a theoretical group of people who could save money by buying a Mac mini instead of the iMac. It is unlikely that anyone trying to save a few hundred dollars is that concerned about color gamuts. I see posts here all the time were someone claims that their display is better because it is 32” or 48”. I don’t know how common such people are but they definitely exist.

Oh, they exist without a doubt and I think it's great they have an option to get a Mini with a display of their choice. Myself, I do think these iMacs are a bit pricey, but I am a sucker for display quality and if I were in a market for one of those machines I'd definitely get an iMac. Compared to what is out there on the market the value proposition is still very good.

 

[CWallace]

My point is that this is virtually the same M1 across all four computers. Meaning that the Mac mini and 24" iMac have the same exact computing guts (something that was never true of any Intel Mac mini and any Intel 21.5" 4K iMac; it was commonly true of a Mac mini and a contemporary 13" MacBook Pro, but never also the contemporary MacBook Air as well).

The Mac mini always had a different Intel CPU than the one found in the 13" MacBook Pro.

The value proposition for each of these computers change when they all have the exact same (or very close to the same) performance capabilities. The idea that I pay LESS for a notebook with the same exact performance as a desktop, and solely because that desktop has a 24" 4.5K Retina display IS new as that has never been how computers have been sold up until this point. Making the 24" M1 iMac the same cost as the M1 2-port 13" MacBook Pro would make much more sense than the iMac being more expensive and with no performance gains over it.

If your primary - or only - value basis is CPU performance, then I agree one should buy whatever is cheapest with that performance as everything else doesn't matter at all or as much. So someone with that value proposition should probably get the $699 Mac mini and spend another $50 on the mouse, keyboard and monitor and you will come in at half the price of the iMac and $500 under the MacBook Air.

You don't buy the iMac for the keyboard and mouse. That's a silly notion if I've ever heard one.

But since it comes with both, how good they are do have some influence. I expect the vast majority of people who buy an iMac use the included keyboard and mouse so it is important they are at least functional devices.

 

[Joelist]

Let's do this accurately if you are going to price compare. You need:

- Mac Mini
- A display that has all of the same characteristics as the one they included. What you may PREFER does not matter here it is a comparison and therefore you need to compare like items.
- Wireless keyboard with the same characteristics (including Touch ID) as the Apple one
- Wireless Mouse/Trackpad again with same characteristics
- Speaker setup (preferable wireless)
- Webcam that has to be both 1080p AND use DIP and DSP to enhance its output.

And your target price is $1299

I did a bit of looking and...

The cheapest display with similar characteristics was $599

Keyboard? Best price while being roughly equal was $100

Mouse was about $20 A trackpad is about $50 and is not even close to the Apple one

Speakers? Seems to be in the $40 or greater range.

And Webcam. A 1080p from a reputable manufacturer (as Webcams sadly are an arena where there are a LOT of really slapdash makers out there) is a good $100.

So that comes to $869 or $889 depending on whether you went Mouse or Trackpad. Add in the Mac Mini we are at $1568 base model or alternately $1968 if you go with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD.

 

[Yebubbleman]

People who think the iMac is overpriced remind me of the PC users I know that have no taste and care only about spending as little as possible. You get what you pay for. The 4.5K display would be worth all of an $800 difference on it's own to people like me, let alone getting the new design and kybd & mouse.

I don't waste money, heck I'm still wearing my Series 0 Apple Watch and my daily iMac is a 2014. I tend to buy the best I can, Apple monitors are not cheap garbage and not really comparable to low-end alternatives.

If we're talking about cheap garbage, then we ought to at least be honest about the fact that the Magic Mouse 2 is cheap garbage and the keyboard that they include in the lower end model is, as far as Apple keyboards go, not much better. Made of aluminum and designed by Jony Ive in California, sure. But high quality human input devices these are not.

Secondly, my point isn't that the 4.5K display DOESN'T add value. My point is that the 21.5" 4K display commanded a MUCH smaller premium than this 4.5K display does, when you factor in the relative cost of the computing innards inside (again these are weaker computing guts than exist in a desktop that is $600 cheaper). My commentary on this isn't the same "iMacs aren't worth it" commentary of which you speak as I wouldn't have made these claims of the 21.5" 4K iMac (at least not while it was still somewhat new and not totally dated as far as the computing horsepower is concerned) nor will I for any 27" 5K iMac. But even in those cases, the display is being given at way less of a premium than the 24" 4.5K M1 iMac's display is.

Oh, they exist without a doubt and I think it's great they have an option to get a Mini with a display of their choice. Myself, I do think these iMacs are a bit pricey, but I am a sucker for display quality and if I were in a market for one of those machines I'd definitely get an iMac. Compared to what is out there on the market the value proposition is still very good.

My mother is in the market for an M1 desktop. She needs to replace her current display. That's probably the tie-breaker that will cause my stepfather and I to consider an M1 iMac over an M1 Mac mini. But certainly were that not the case, the Mac mini would, for her needs, be the hands down better value.

The Mac mini always had a different Intel CPU than the one found in the 13" MacBook Pro.

That's not accurate at all. The 2009 Mac minis used the same CPUs that were in the 2009 13" MacBook Pros and late 2009 white MacBook (all dual-core Penryn with GeForce 9400M based chipsets). Same for the 2010 versions of all three systems (all dual-core Penryn with GeForce 320M based chipsets). The white MacBook was discontinued after 2010, but the 2011 13" MacBook Pros and the 2011 Mac minis also used the same CPUs (dual-core Sandy Bridge). The dual-core 2012 Mac minis also used the same Core i5 that was stock in both retina and non-retina versions of the 2012 13" MacBook Pro (dual-core Ivy Bridge), while the quad-core models used CPUs found in the 15" MacBook Pros that year (quad-core Ivy Bridge). In 2014, the lower-end Mac minis used the same Core i5 found in the 2014 MacBook Airs (dual-core Haswell ULV U-series), while higher-end Core i5 and Core i7 models were the same as what was in 2014 13" MacBook Pros as well (dual-core Haswell U-series). It wasn't until the 2018 Mac mini that there was any deviation from this whatsoever; though with the M1 models, we're back to there being parity between the two models. Go check Mactracker if you don't believe me.

 

[Abazigal]

Just because you could buy something inferior (inferior on multiple fronts) for less money doesn't make the iMac less value.

People who think the iMac is overpriced remind me of the PC users I know that have no taste and care only about spending as little as possible. You get what you pay for. The 4.5K display would be worth all of an $800 difference on it's own to people like me, let alone getting the new design and kybd & mouse.

Agreed. What it essentially comes down to is that there are people willing to pay for good design. Apple knows this, it’s the reason why Apple is as successful as it is today, and it’s the reason why Apple will continue to be successful for a good long period of time.

 

[neilw]

Secondly, my point isn't that the 4.5K display DOESN'T add value for me.

Fixed.

It certainly adds value for me, and I am immensely pleased with the machine.

 

[UltimateSyn]

Not for long, though!

 

[4sallypat]

I have both the base M1 Mini and M1 iMac and they are phenomenal bargains compared to the awful Intel based counterparts that I lived with for over 15 years.

• 
  My base M1 Mini is perfect for my home as I need dual displays (27" Thunderbolt for everyday tasks + 32" 4K for movies). Total cost w/ Apple KB & Mouse = $1500.
• My base M1 iMac is perfect for my work as I need the built in 4.5K Retina display along with a 24" Apple Cinema display as a second display. I added full sized numeric keyboard, Pro Apps bundle & ethernet option. Total cost: $1555.

Never have I seen such amazing performance out of both machines with 8GB Unified Memory.

So glad Apple decided to go back to RISC processors custom made....

 

[dieselm]

It's pretty. Pretty furniture in your house costs more. No more or less complicated than that.

No Mhz, No i3/i5/i7, no decisions.

It's the same compute, just pick color and which form factor you want. Tablet, laptop, all-in-one or headless.
Same thing every year. 2021 model or 2022 model or 2023 model. That's it.

I'll bet there won't even be an "M1X". Just M1 - 8-core CPU or 10-core CPU.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Fixed.

It certainly adds value for me, and I am immensely pleased with the machine.

No, actually the way you edited it makes even less sense since I WASN'T trying to suggest that the display doesn't add value. Context is everything.

 

[principia]

As a preface: This post is not to knock anyone who went out and bought either variant of 24" iMac. This is merely an observation.

With the Intel 21.5" 4K Retina iMacs, the amount of power and performance that you'd get would always be greater than that of the contemporary Mac mini, MacBook Air, and whichever 13" MacBook Pro was out at the time (let alone the 2-port Intel variants). It would have a higher starting price tag, but you'd always get substantially more computing and graphics horsepower out of it.

Now, with the M1 being mostly the same across all four Mac models that have it in terms of performance. The M1 iMac, when spec'ed similarly to the previous most expensive M1 Mac (the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro), is $200 more.

I'm not sure, in the history of Macs, let alone personal computing, that we've had a scenario where you have a laptop and a desktop with the exact same specs and, roughly, the exact same performance where the desktop was actually MORE money than the laptop. If anything, the desktop is usually cheaper, assuming that kind of equivalency. This is true of the Mac mini in relation to the MacBook Air and the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro. But the iMac seems to change this a bit.

In years past, it is true you did typically get slightly more power out of iMacs than MacBook pros. The reason was simple, thermal limits and battery life knee capped the capabilities of the MacBook Pro line. Apple has always balanced a razor thin line with regard to performance.

At any given time you might not agree, but at least there’s well thought out reason. Case and point: my work laptop is an over priced dell XPS and my personal laptop is a 15” MacBook Pro. Both purchased within 1 month of the other. My dell has “fancy features” like 4K display and touch screen. My MacBook Pro has the standard 2k Retina display. Apple decided not to go 4K because the human eye often cannot perceive a difference on such a small panel, and the lower resolution display and lack of touch screen saves tremendous amounts of battery. My Mac has similar specs to the XPS otherwise, yet the Mac has more than double the practical battery life. Bottom line: I trust apple to make the hard decisions.

Back to the m1 and the power of entry iMac to MacbookPro. I think you’re viewing this performance gap, or lack there of, pessimistically. Consider that the new iMac is getting a substantial power gain, the display is larger and better, and the device is thinner for the same price as the previous model. If you saw the m1 in the iMac alone you’d be thrilled. But you’re bummed the MacBook Pro and air get the same benefits.
Don’t be sad, this means a few things. 1) it means the m1 is truly ground breaking. 2) it means apple can save some cost by leveraging economies of scale meaning they can provide better machines iMac and MacBook Pro alike without raising the price in an economic climate rife with inflation. It’s a win all the way around. And that’s just the entry iMac. There’s a lot of solid speculation that there’s and m1x or m2 coming soon for the higher tier iMacs and MacBook pros. It’s an exciting time. AMD has beaten intel, apple has decimated x86 with its new m1 arm chip. What a world.

And yes, I saw that you’re not upset with performance, but instead that the new iMac has similar performance but for more than the MacBook Pro. Consider how much better the display alone is than previous generations. 4.5K and a jump from 21.5 to 24 inch baseline. I’d say the size of the display is a pretty standard justification alone for the $100 discrepancy.

 

[dukebound85]

until this coming Monday

 

[Yebubbleman]

In years past, it is true you did typically get slightly more power out of iMacs than MacBook pros. The reason was simple, thermal limits and battery life knee capped the capabilities of the MacBook Pro line. Apple has always balanced a razor thin line with regard to performance.

At any given time you might not agree, but at least there’s well thought out reason. Case and point: my work laptop is an over priced dell XPS and my personal laptop is a 15” MacBook Pro. Both purchased within 1 month of the other. My dell has “fancy features” like 4K display and touch screen. My MacBook Pro has the standard 2k Retina display. Apple decided not to go 4K because the human eye often cannot perceive a difference on such a small panel, and the lower resolution display and lack of touch screen saves tremendous amounts of battery. My Mac has similar specs to the XPS otherwise, yet the Mac has more than double the practical battery life. Bottom line: I trust apple to make the hard decisions.

Back to the m1 and the power of entry iMac to MacbookPro. I think you’re viewing this performance gap, or lack there of, pessimistically. Consider that the new iMac is getting a substantial power gain, the display is larger and better, and the device is thinner for the same price as the previous model. If you saw the m1 in the iMac alone you’d be thrilled. But you’re bummed the MacBook Pro and air get the same benefits.
Don’t be sad, this means a few things. 1) it means the m1 is truly ground breaking. 2) it means apple can save some cost by leveraging economies of scale meaning they can provide better machines iMac and MacBook Pro alike without raising the price in an economic climate rife with inflation. It’s a win all the way around. And that’s just the entry iMac. There’s a lot of solid speculation that there’s and m1x or m2 coming soon for the higher tier iMacs and MacBook pros. It’s an exciting time. AMD has beaten intel, apple has decimated x86 with its new m1 arm chip. What a world.

And yes, I saw that you’re not upset with performance, but instead that the new iMac has similar performance but for more than the MacBook Pro. Consider how much better the display alone is than previous generations. 4.5K and a jump from 21.5 to 24 inch baseline. I’d say the size of the display is a pretty standard justification alone for the $100 discrepancy.

I understand that the 4.5K display is the best thing since sliced bread. What I'm saying is that with pretty much every kind of computer out there, including literally every other Apple branded computer from literally every other product line that has ever existed, portability adds cost and higher performance adds cost. Bigger displays may add cost, but in and of themselves do not add the kind of cost that we're seeing here. No matter how you slice it, this is not the ordinary with computers, whether they are running Intel, AMD, or Apple Silicon under the hood.

 

[Spindel]

Man this thread still going.

OK I spent almost the price difference between the iMac and Mac Mini on a monitor for my M1 Mini, the kicker is that the monitor I got is a 1440p monitor (but at 27”) that is colour accurate and bright, I made that choice because I don’t personally don’t need more pixels, think 4K and above is a waste and I’m more interested in getting good colours.

For the last time iMac is not over priced when factoring in the display it comes with, I’ll even stretch as far and say it actually is a pretty good value. But it takes away your options for display (in my case for example I would have loved to have only a 1440p panel do free resources to other things than pushing pixels). And of course it is not a good value if you allready invested in a good monitor earlier (but then you should get a Mac Mini instead).

Stop comparing it to cheapo VA/TN panels.

 

[dieselm]

I understand that the 4.5K display is the best thing since sliced bread. What I'm saying is that with pretty much every kind of computer out there, including literally every other Apple branded computer from literally every other product line that has ever existed, portability adds cost and higher performance adds cost. Bigger displays may add cost, but in and of themselves do not add the kind of cost that we're seeing here. No matter how you slice it, this is not the ordinary with computers, whether they are running Intel, AMD, or Apple Silicon under the hood.

This is not ordinary. And that’s the point. Free from Intel, Apple is removing differential CPU pricing between categories.

Ordinary is starting with a power-hungry desktop level chip, where the laptop costs more and/or performs worse. The tradeoffs of cooling, power, performance in a small package inevitably lead to that higher cost, or worse performance. Mhz binning, i3/i5/i7, segmentation into mobile,desktop, ultra-low power, xeon, pentium, etc into 100+ chip products. It's a mess.

Apple is starting with cores developed for phones with the highest single-thread CPU performance, no active cooling and they just put it in everything. R&D on the latest chip processes are spread across only 2, soon 3, chips on mass (iPhone) volumes.

Single-thread CPU performance will be the same across all devices each year and it's all going to be thin, light and silent. The base level is a great experience. The customers who need it pay for packages of (very high margin) memory, storage, screens, cores, and features (ports, touchID,faceID).

Hard to beat them on the entry tier as they deliver so high performance into MBA and mini for competitive prices. Hard to beat them on the high end as they rake in the margins on the optional/not optional items for the people who need (can afford) it.